Why is contraception a deadly sin?

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · May 16, 2005

Celticflower said:
Let's see--to "not complete the sex act" is a sin, but blocking the sperm from its final destination is ok as long as you do not use a chemical method? Have I got that right?
Is abstenance ok? After all, you could be blocking the conception of a child by not having sex.
Just how many rules and loopholes are you going to make on this subject?
Personally, I think it is up to the married couple and their doctor to decide about birth control in any form, and all decisions should be prayerfully arrived at.

I wish people would read all of my posts. I stated that block methods were the only method I couldn't make a Biblical case for. Absitence is only allright according to Paul for a time of prayer and fasting. I believe that the fullness of the act of sex is God's gift to us and to deny any aspect of it is wrong be that aspect procreation or recreation.

Let me restate all chemical methods will act as abortificants should they fail to prevent the egg from dropping so those are right out. Abstinence is for a time of prayer and fasting. I do not believe that block methods are allright but in the abscence of being able to make a Biblical case for them I have to conceded that I could not say they are sinful. It's not a loophole it's logic. We know Onan was struck dead, pre-Law for his act, we know abortion is wrong, we know that we are not to withhold sex without it being mutual for a time of prayer and fasting, and that leaves just block methods. Were I Catholic this would be much easier and I could fall back on Tradition but I am not and since block methods are not mentioned in scripture I cannot call them sinful.

deu58 · May 16, 2005

Hi Flesh

flesh99 said:
I wish people would read all of my posts. I stated that block methods were the only method I couldn't make a Biblical case for. Absitence is only allright according to Paul for a time of prayer and fasting. I believe that the fullness of the act of sex is God's gift to us and to deny any aspect of it is wrong be that aspect procreation or recreation.

Let me restate all chemical methods will act as abortificants should they fail to prevent the egg from dropping so those are right out. Abstinence is for a time of prayer and fasting. I do not believe that block methods are allright but in the abscence of being able to make a Biblical case for them I have to conceded that I could not say they are sinful. It's not a loophole it's logic. We know Onan was struck dead, pre-Law for his act, we know abortion is wrong, we know that we are not to withhold sex without it being mutual for a time of prayer and fasting, and that leaves just block methods. Were I Catholic this would be much easier and I could fall back on Tradition but I am not and since block methods are not mentioned in scripture I cannot call them sinful.

Glad you put it all in a nut shell. your position makes sense now,

yours in Christ
deu 58

Jaywalk · May 16, 2005

PapaLandShark said:
I believe "Block" methods refer to condoms and diaphrams ( Not certain where IUD's fit into this class ).

Eh...Where does it state in the Bible that contraception is wrong again? Without stretching?

I really do find it somewhat suspect when folks try to reduce human beings to reproductive units.

Not certain where IUD's fit into this class.

An IUD functions by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the womb. Those who define life as beginning at fertilization would consider it a means of abortion.

Delta One · May 17, 2005

Hi arunangelo,
I hope that no one else has covered the points that I'll be bringing up! Cuz I thought up an answer to this question that took me about half an hour. :idea:

When we go against the very physiological purpose, we are going against the creator of the physiology, which is God. In addition, contraceptive methods are directly against life and some of them kill embryos by preventing their implantation on the uterine wall. Contraception is therefore, anti-life and therefore against God. Furthermore, it makes conjugal union sterile or devoid of any life-giving element. It therefore, degrades conjugal union in marriage from a sacrificial and holy act, to an act of selfish desire; and makes the couple look at each other as objects of pleasure, rather than temples of the Holy Spirit. It is therefore, no surprise that in the scriptures a contraceptive act was considered deadly in the eyes of God (Gen.38:8-10).

I must say that straight out I do not agree with you. Sex is a God given gift not only intended for reproduction, but also for enjoyment and pleasure between married couples. Sex is one just one way of the couples saying that they still love each other. Listen to what Paul says to the Church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 7:

But because there is so much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. A man should fulfill his duty as a husband and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife, and each should satisfy the other's needs.

The one thing that most people know about the Corinth church is that they were renowned for sexual immorality. Here Paul is basically saying that having sex for pleasure in marriage is not immoral - he encourages it rather than then have them having sex with different people. If having sex for pleasure with no intent of child bearing is wrong full stop, then why tell the church of Corinth that they should get married as opposed to just telling them that they are wicked and should give up with "evil" ways?

Now lets concentrate on the last sentence. God made man to be easily sexually aroused in Genesis such that they would reproduce. In a marriage, however, man is still very sexually active and the woman may not want to have any more children (which is fair enough given the high costs with raising children - they say about $500 000 is about how much most people spend on children - and the hassles involved in doing so), then where is the man going to fulfill his sexuality? If his own wife won't do it, then obviously he may have to go and find someone else to have sex with - known as an affair. Paul, upon realising this, says that both partners in a relationship should satisfy each others needs, this includes sexual needs as well as financial and so on. But since the Corinth church was struggling with sexuality, this clearly refers to sexual needs. This also prompts Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 7:5:

Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations. In this way you will be kept from giving in to Satans temptation because of your lack of self-control. I tell you this not as an order, but simply as a permission.

Here Paul is once again clearly talking about sex between a married couple. If a couples sexual drive is being met by each other, for what reason would they give into Satans sexual temptation? IF, however, there is no sexual relations going on between that couple, there is a greater chance that one of the partners will give in because of their lack of self-control as hormones are a tough thing to deny. When Paul tells married couples to resume normal marital relations he is also referring to sex the word relations gives this away. The last part is Paul saying that its okay to have sex between married couples.

Your reference to Genesis 38:8-10 is most interesting indeed, brutal, but interesting. I dont know much about the customs of that time, but from what I can make out it was customary for the brother of a deceased man to have sexual relations with his widow such that the deceased man may have descendants. The reason why God killed Onan was because he didnt carry though with this custom is my understanding of it. Onan defeated the whole purpose of him having sex with his brothers widow, i.e. to continue his brothers line. Onan was having sexual relations with the widow out of pleasure and out outside of marriage and not for the right reasons. I think that if Onan made the widow pregnant, then God would have not killed him and He would not have been displeased. Obviously times change and we do not continue the line of a dead man by having sexual relations with his widow. One cannot use this example as an example that God dislikes contraception as they are missing the whole point of what Onan did and why it displeased God.

From my knowledge of contraception, which admittedly is quite small, does not kill embryos (although it is nice to see Christians opposing the destruction of embryos, IMO human beings) but prevents the womans eggs from being fertilized by the males sperm by destroying the males sperm or, like condoms, prevent it from even entering the woman. I believe that there are some deaths that are not moral death such as the death of some brain cells during our pre-birth years, it is this process that alters peoples intelligence levels and personality (I think Ive heard it from somewhere), and the death of plants when they were eaten by the animals and humans.

May God Bless you,
Delta One.

Btw, I'm obviously protestant

, although I do respect your beliefs - I just don't think that there is any Biblical basis for it...

Silent Enigma · May 17, 2005

I know it's a long post but I promise it'll be interesting!!!

Sorry I couldn't read the whole thread right now but I wanted to put in my 2 cents.

As someone pointed out earlier.

Conversely, couples who know they are incapable of having children, would be obliged to refrain from sexual intimacy.

Many people have pointed out that many catholics and protestants have viewed any sort of contraception as wrong up until a little while ago. But rather than just quoting some of the reformers or popes, it would behoove us to go back much further to get a balanced view on this. (Which ties into the quote above.)

What the quote above said is EXACTLY what some (many? most?) of the early church leaders and writers taught. I'll start off with a quote from Athenagoras (an apologist) in 175 A.D. --

"We despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul. Each of us considers her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us- and he married only for the purpose of having children. After throwing the seed into the ground, the farmer awaits the harvest. He does not sow more seed on top if it. Likewise, to us the procreation of children is the limit of out indulgence in [sexual] appetite."

So as they interpreted it, some lovin' with your wifey when she is expecting is immoral because you've already concieved. That's 9 (count 'em) 9 months. Plus you can't get pregnant right after having a baby so add on at least 2 or 3 more.

Likely because of the very immoral culture they had to live in, some early Christians viewed it as having to take either one extreme or the other. Clement of Alexandria (teacher at a catechetical school), 195 A.D., sums it up--

"Scripture does not regard it as right for sexual relations to take place either in wantonness or for hire like prostitutes. Rather it is only for the birth of children."

(emphasis mine)

So from his perspective it is either fornication or the procreation only stance. One extreme or the other. I don't know of many in the quiver-fill movement who have taken it that far, but it probably won't be long before some book promoting that perspective comes out.

It is my opinion that these views came about as "an equal and opposite reaction" to the horrendous perverse culture they were living in. The went to the extreme and viewed sex itself as a "necessary evil" of sorts. Do a little study on greek/roman sexual practices of the time (or maybe not :sick:

) and you can easily see how they went that route.

Since that time many in Christendom have viewed sexual pleasure as the "devil's gift". If not in theology then in attitude. And the affect of this heresy is apparent. A healthy view of sex veers "neither to the left nor the right" and promotes a healthy sustainable marriage relationship.

I, at one time, believed the quiver-full theology until I found that this "historical" doctrine traces it's way back to a very ancient heresy (or mis interpretation, depending on how you look at it). When I began to question some of the core tenets of quiver full theology, I wrote down a list of questions that no one who endorses quiver-full-ism has been able to answer. They usually just "run". If anyone would like to answer them, please PM me.

But back to history. In the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in 390 AD, it said

"Nor, indeed, let them have relations when their wives are with child. For [in that case] they are not doing it for the begetting of children, but only for the sake of pleasure. Now a lover of God should not be a lover of pleasure."

and another one from there:

"We believe that lawful marriage and the begetting of children is honorable and undefiled."

Wait a minute, the bible says the marriage BED is undefiled, not just marriage PROCREATION. Note the difference!

So in conclusion I say that if you're going to use the history argument, go all the way back to the "no intimate relations if your wife is pregnant" philosophy, which all the following quiver-full theology was built upon.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · May 17, 2005

Silent Enigma said:
I know it's a long post buy I promise it'll be interesting!!!

Sorry I couldn't read the whole thread right now but I wanted to put in my 2 cents.

As someone pointed out earlier.

Many people have pointed out that many catholics and protestants have viewed any sort of contraception as wrong up until a little while ago. But rather than just quoting some of the reformers or popes, it would behoove us to go back much further to get a balanced view on this. (Which ties into the quote above.)

What the quote above said is EXACTLY what some (many? most?) of the early church leaders and writers taught. I'll start off with a quote from Athenagoras (an apologist) in 175 A.D. --

So as they interpreted it, some lovin' with your wifey when she is expecting is immoral because you've already concieved. That's 9 (count 'em) 9 months. Plus you can't get pregnant right after having a baby so add on at least 2 or 3 more.

Likely because of the very immoral culture they had to live in, some early Christians viewed it as having to take either one extreme or the other. Clement of Alexandria (teacher at a catechetical school), 195 A.D., sums it up--

(emphasis mine)

So from his perspective it is either fornication or the procreation only stance. One extreme or the other. I don't know of many in the quiver-fill movement who have taken it that far, but it probably won't be long before some book promoting that perspective comes out.

It is my opinion that these views came about as "an equal and opposite reaction" to the horrendous perverse culture they were living in. The went to the extreme and viewed sex itself as a "necessary evil" of sorts. Do a little study on greek/roman sexual practices of the time (or maybe not ) and you can easily see how they went that route.

Since that time many in Christendom have viewed sexual pleasure as the "devil's gift". If not in theology then in attitude. And the affect of this heresy is apparent. A healthy view of sex veers "neither to the left nor the right" and promotes a healthy sustainable marriage relationship.

I, at one time, believed the quiver-full theology until I found that this "historical" doctrine traces it's way back to a very ancient heresy (or mis interpretation, depending on how you look at it). When I because to question some of the core tenets of quiver full theology, I wrote down a list of questions that no one who endorses quiver-full-ism has been able to answer. They usually just "run". If anyone would like to answer them, please PM me.

But back to history. In the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in 390 AD, it said

and another one from there:

Wait a minute, the bible says the marriage BED is undefiled, not just marriage PROCREATION. Note the difference!

So in conclusion I say that if you're going to use the history argument, go all the way back to the "no intimate relations if your wife is pregnant" philosophy, which all the following quiver-full theology was built upon.

Why not post the list here instead of claiming to have a list no-one will answer and asking for PMs about it. I posted the reformers only to show this is not a Catholic only view but since the reformers are just men and I don't hold them infallible I do not use their words to back up my stance. My position has come from prayer and study and not any historical position of the church as a whole. The statement about birth control being sinful until recently is correct and one must wonder how God would have allowed the whole church to have it wrong for so long so history plays into in that aspect. But by all means post this list of questions so we can all see it.

Silent Enigma · May 22, 2005

But by all means post this list of questions so we can all see it.

Give me a bit it's in letter form right now on my hard drive somewhere. So it'll have to be edited down so hang on.

Silent Enigma · Jun 5, 2005

Here it is--

Hi there,

I thank you for taking the time for reading this letter. I have some questions regarding the no birth control issue. I was hoping youd be able to answer them for me, if possible.

Ive read a few books that relate to this issue, like A Full Quiver, another one called Children, Blessing or Burden (or something close to that) by Max Hiene(?), and parts of another book by Mary Pride.

To start out, I want to establish my perspective on this so you know where Im coming from. I do believe that God controls the opening and closing of wombs, as verses like Genesis 30:22, 1 Sam 1:5, etc. illustrate. (And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb. But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb)

As I understand it, the argument goes that since God is in control of this process (just like He is involved in everything else), man does not have the liberty of also getting involved in this. Mans dominion would not go that far.

From what Ive read, the no birth control advocates lean to the perspective that no involvement in the reproductive process is permissible. Spacing children, for whatever reasons, would be out. And a barren couple using medical means of trying to achieve a pregnancy would likewise be unacceptable. (Correct me if Im wrong but this is what the no birth control authors that Ive read say.)

But I have a question regarding this interpretation. The scripture also testifies that God controls when and how much rain falls on the earth.

He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
- Psalm 104:13,14

And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.
- Deuteronomy 11:13-17

Is it therefore not honoring to God to irrigate your crops when it doesnt rain enough, or to try to protect them from excessive rain? Are we not respecting His sovereignty over precipitation? This is a significant question. After all, similar wording is used.

God also controls what national leaders are in place:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
- Romans 13:1

Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
- Daniel 2:20-22

I would venture to guess that many of the homeschooling, no birth control families are concerned about politics in this country and are active voters. My question is, if involvement in reproduction is off limits, is involvement in the setting up of kings sinful as well? By determining for yourself when its due time to irrigate your crops, are you trying to avoid Gods condition that you hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you??

The method of interpretation that Ive seen applied in the no birth control issue has a bearing on more than just reproduction. God is involved in everything, in some way or another. So how do you draw the line of where mans dominion begins and ends??

I guess that would be the crux of what Ive asked so far. If it is scriptural to apply a completely hands-off interpretation to childbearing, where does it scripturally end?

Aside from that, Ive got a couple of other side questions. Humor me for a bit.

When discussing the issue of financing a potentially large household on one income, the counsel is usually to the effect of: God can miraculously provide for you and your family in all circumstances. This is true. God can.

But there is one thing that is curious to me. I have read several books on this issue, and I have never heard anyone say: Dont worry about living expenses, because if you fall short, well pick up the slack. Heres our address (insert here), just bring your crew on over. Logically, God will miraculously provide for two umpteen-child households as easily as one. And shouldnt the author have the confidence that their offer would go unused? Not that Im not saying anyone has to make this offer. But it is curious how this never comes up.

Dont get me wrong here. Jesus teaches us not to worry about what to eat, wear, etc. And we are also told to be content with what we have. But isnt anybody willing to deal with the results of their teaching? After all, Jesus fed the 5,000 who followed after Him to listen to His teaching. The apostles wanted to send them away. I may be misunderstanding, but I get that same feeling from no birth control authors. Well teach you from afar, but keep your needs away. Why is this?

But enough of that. I have but one more thing to address.

Another thing I have run across several times is a statement to the effect of: After we decided birth control was wrong, we never had a baby we werent ready for. This, obviously, is intended to give the impression that this will happen to you, the reader, too.

But what would you say to this woman?

Dear ----------,

I have had 4 babies in the last 2 years. I already had 4 other young children. My husband does not share my conviction on trusting God in the area of how many babies we have. He has been very angry because I refuse any use of birth control. I feel so alone sometimes. We are under such a strain. I must admit I dread coming together. My body is shot. My 4 older children are strangers to me and very disobedient. I am so weary from being pregnant, nursing or taking care of sick kids that I dont have anything left to give them. My husband just stays away as much as possible. I dont even know what I am asking except, help.

The letter was sent in to a child-training newsletter. I found it very compelling, because many of the things that many no-birth-control authors all-but-guarantee didnt happen in this womans case.

I know that such a short letter offers almost no background or context to judge the situation as a whole by. But consider some of the things that happened.

A husband has effectively lost his wife.

The children have effectively lost their mother. At least in the sense of the kind of mother we would like to have.

And the children lost their fathers presence as well. (Its assumed its because of the stress of this situation.)

All for the sake of an interpreted doctrine that some author proposed would fix all of Christianitys and the nations problems (well, that depends on the author I guess).

Would you respond that she should just keep reproducing? Dont worry, everything will just work out somehow? Depart in peace, be warmed and filled ??

Tough questions, to be sure. But if you could answer some of them Id be thankful.

[end of letter]

sitebuilder · Jun 6, 2005

Here it is--

Hi there,

I thank you for taking the time for reading this letter. I have some questions regarding the no birth control issue. I was hoping youd be able to answer them for me, if possible.

I wont' make things longer by quoting the whole thing right here and now, but I want so much to leave some immediate comments.

As you may have read from an earlier post of mine, myself and my wife do not use any birth control. Period. We don't space, no NFP, no denying of each other .... other than what has been specifically stated .... which is rare.

I'm not sure if you would call us part of the "quiver full" movement, only because we only heard about it after we had our 6th child. I don't know all of what they state or their belief system.

But I do very much believe in the sovereign control of God in THIS area, and we do allow for that control.

Given that, I found your entire post EXCELLENT! You state some real legitimate questions and your tone is not that of "See! You are soooo wrong!". The questions have merit. I will do my best to answer them from my perspective, but honestly some of them I have probably never considered. I will still do my best.

One last thing that may not match up with the quiver full method/belief. We don't necessarily believe that everyone can or should do this. Only as God has moved in your heart towards this and to the ability that your faith allows. As an example, God called Abraham to believe on him for a child, but at the time lacked the faith at the time and thus used the maid servant Hagar. He presumed he was doing good by helping God out and that is what he felt was best.

Any, call this my introduction in the matter so you understand my perspective as I attempt to answer your questions.

Blessings to all who read!

zaire · Jun 6, 2005

the Bible does not forbid contraception. Contraception, by it's definition, is the merely opposite of conception. It is not the act of contraception itself that determines whether it is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong. If a person is practicing contraception because they will have more for themselves, then it is wrong. If a person is practicing contraception in order to temporarily delay children until they are more mature and more financially and spiritually prepared, then it is acceptable to use contraception for a time. Again, it all comes back to your motivation.

.

sitebuilder · Jun 6, 2005

He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
- Psalm 104:13,14

And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.
- Deuteronomy 11:13-17

Is it therefore not honoring to God to irrigate your crops when it doesnt rain enough, or to try to protect them from excessive rain? Are we not respecting His sovereignty over precipitation? This is a significant question. After all, similar wording is used.

In context this promise Deuteronomy made was made to Isreal, and it should not be accepted as a promise for everyone, everywhere. I think you can take the principles here, use them as a guide for good things that you can follow. But not as a promise. That would take this particular scripture out of its context.

But I agree that there is reasonable scriptural proof that God has control over all things. Including the rain and sun. So your point is "how do you decide to follow/trust in one than the other?"

It's more than just that God opens and closes the womb, God said that children are a blessing. So we actually WANT to be blessed by God and thus we receive a blessing. Also, God is the author of life, He knits us while we are in our mothers womb. It's not just the act that is at question, it's the entire process that God is in control of. So for me and this act, God is always soveriegn, I am not. I chose to trust/allow God to have control on this part of my life.

But it is a choice I follow out of obedience because I believe that he has asked this of our family.

God doesn't ask everyone to sacrifice their child as an offering, like he did of Abraham. But what God wanted was his obedience, total, non-questioning obedience. That is what I am offering/sacrificing for him.

sitebuilder · Jun 6, 2005

I would venture to guess that many of the homeschooling, no birth control families are concerned about politics in this country and are active voters. My question is, if involvement in reproduction is off limits, is involvement in the setting up of kings sinful as well? By determining for yourself when its due time to irrigate your crops, are you trying to avoid Gods condition that you hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you??

The method of interpretation that Ive seen applied in the no birth control issue has a bearing on more than just reproduction. God is involved in everything, in some way or another. So how do you draw the line of where mans dominion begins and ends??

I guess that would be the crux of what Ive asked so far. If it is scriptural to apply a completely hands-off interpretation to childbearing, where does it scripturally end?

Again, I say .... excellent questions and points.

But unfortunately your point cuts both ways as you are now talking about faith itself. You are basically asking "Where does faith in God end if he is the author and finisher of everything?".

We believe in God for salvation, we can believe God for provision ... if we choose. Or we can choose to take matters into our own hands. Where that line should be drawn, I believe, is at the heart of our relationship with God. This is central to our faith and walk with the Lord.

And this is why I think that our faith, trust and obedience levels vary from one person to another. We are all "working through our faith". We are all looking to find and obey God in our lives. And God does not call everyone to do the same thing in these debatable matters. Just as God does not require everyone to sacrafice thier children on an altar. But God may ask you to make just as big of a sacrifice, but it will probably take on a different form.

As we live and grow in our faith, I think there is a gradual transformation of realizing how great and big God is and how little we are. The more we learn the bigger God gets and the smaller we are.

So I do not believe in any broad-sweeping statement that contains the words "all", "no one", "never" or "always". We are all coninuing to work through our faith and to obey God where we are at. It is our willingness to come under his submission in everthing as we work though our faith that defines the Christian life and journey.

To try to specifically answer your question: God ultimately puts those who are in power there. God has full authority here and also asks us to submit to this authority. If God moves some to be active in the political system, and not others, God continues to be completely soveriegn.

sitebuilder · Jun 6, 2005

When discussing the issue of financing a potentially large household on one income, the counsel is usually to the effect of: God can miraculously provide for you and your family in all circumstances. This is true. God can.

But there is one thing that is curious to me. I have read several books on this issue, and I have never heard anyone say: Dont worry about living expenses, because if you fall short, well pick up the slack. Heres our address (insert here), just bring your crew on over. Logically, God will miraculously provide for two umpteen-child households as easily as one. And shouldnt the author have the confidence that their offer would go unused? Not that Im not saying anyone has to make this offer. But it is curious how this never comes up.

Dont get me wrong here. Jesus teaches us not to worry about what to eat, wear, etc. And we are also told to be content with what we have. But isnt anybody willing to deal with the results of their teaching? After all, Jesus fed the 5,000 who followed after Him to listen to His teaching. The apostles wanted to send them away. I may be misunderstanding, but I get that same feeling from no birth control authors. Well teach you from afar, but keep your needs away. Why is this?

I think for the author to make such a claim on the whole in a book is rather arrogant. He is assuming all are called to this. If that were true, Paul would be married and having many children. John the Baptist would have married as well. He calls people to do different things according to his will. And I don't believe all are called to this life. If that were so, Jesus himself would have set this example.

As far as provision goes, again, it is a question of faith. God specifically moved our family in this direction and we are obeying. Because of this we truly have seen miraculous things happen. We are very blessed because the needs we have experienced are not just financial, but time. Since we've just had our 7th, the beginnings of life require lots of attention from both of us for our newborn baby. We life 30 minutes away from grocery shopping and other normal errands that we must do. God has provided help in these little ways ... a trip to the grocery store.

But God has also blessed us financially. In the past few months, our income has increased. Not just by percentages ... but in multiples. Our income is 4 times greater now than it was 4 months ago. Not because I'm this great guy, but because God is soverien and I prayed that he would meet this need. He has gone exceedingly above and beyond and continues to amaze us.

sitebuilder · Jun 6, 2005

Another thing I have run across several times is a statement to the effect of: After we decided birth control was wrong, we never had a baby we werent ready for. This, obviously, is intended to give the impression that this will happen to you, the reader, too.

But what would you say to this woman?

Dear ----------,

I have had 4 babies in the last 2 years. I already had 4 other young children. My husband does not share my conviction on trusting God in the area of how many babies we have. He has been very angry because I refuse any use of birth control. I feel so alone sometimes. We are under such a strain. I must admit I dread coming together. My body is shot. My 4 older children are strangers to me and very disobedient. I am so weary from being pregnant, nursing or taking care of sick kids that I dont have anything left to give them. My husband just stays away as much as possible. I dont even know what I am asking except, help.

The letter was sent in to a child-training newsletter. I found it very compelling, because many of the things that many no-birth-control authors all-but-guarantee didnt happen in this womans case.

I know that such a short letter offers almost no background or context to judge the situation as a whole by. But consider some of the things that happened.

A husband has effectively lost his wife.

The children have effectively lost their mother. At least in the sense of the kind of mother we would like to have.

And the children lost their fathers presence as well. (Its assumed its because of the stress of this situation.)

All for the sake of an interpreted doctrine that some author proposed would fix all of Christianitys and the nations problems (well, that depends on the author I guess).

Would you respond that she should just keep reproducing? Dont worry, everything will just work out somehow? Depart in peace, be warmed and filled ??

When God first moved in my heart to follow and obey him in this way, I knew that if this was truly from him that God would unite myself and my wife in this way. After all, our bodies are no longer our own. They belong to our spouses (in this way). So we are required to submit to each other in this way.

If my wife did not feel moved as I did, it would be against the will of God as well. We were never against kids at any time, but we never had decided on the number. But if we were to be this open and trusting, and it would be her and her body that would be going through this, then she needed to be a willing participant in this. Anything less would produce a serious division in our marrieage.

To this letter, as limited as we have it, the wife is not submitting to her husband. He is the head and the authority. Her insistance that this is God's will goes against the family heirarchy that God has created over an area that is at the least debatable. She has pitted her will, in the name of God, against her hustband in an area that is very clear in the Bible.

It would be better if she could be content and live a life that would honor her husband. And, chances are, in that honor her husband's heart may have a chance to change or grow and then they may have an opportunity to both be like minded in this issue.

In closing ...

In debatable areas like this, it is best not to assert one's will over anothers unless the Bible is perfectly clear. If you do, you are just as much a leagalist and might as well mandate what clothes someone wears, if jewelery is allowed to be worn, or what constitutes a covering on a woman's head. Read the entire book of Galatians. It is for the chruch here and now regarding these issues of the law. In there Paul makes it perfectly clear that we are no longer under the law, and that Christ fullfilled the law on the cross.

Blessings to you all!

Silent Enigma · Jun 10, 2005

Wow that was a great reply. Well thought out and all. I appreciate the effort that went into it. Sounds like we agree on most points.

Actually now that I think about it I wonder how you found the opportunity to write this, having 7 kids!

My letter was more of a response to the in-your-face-this-is-what-all-true-Christians-do mindset, which you obviously aren't in favor of.

God bless.
-enigma

arunangelo · Jun 12, 2005

Contraception, means against conception of a life. Therefore, any form of contraception is against life. Life is a free gift from God. We have to accept His gift and trust His judgment. Contraception therefore, is rejection of God's free gift and distrust of His judgments. When we use contraception, we play God. We decide when we are ready. We want to control our own life. We have a choice, to surrender our life to God or try to control our own life. All in our heart know, which choice leads to destruction?

Before we were conceived in our mother's womb, God knew us and called us by our name (Jer. 1; 3). This means God has a plan for human beings before they are conceived. In contraception we go against God's plan for a new human life. We are either with God's plan or against His plan. If we are with God, we are saved, because, of Him; if we reject His plan, and prefer our own choice (which is the case in contraception) then we are on our own; and no one can be saved without God.

Though, physiologically, conjugal union and conception are part of the same physiological process, in human relationship, conjugal union also serves to make husband and wife one flesh. In other words, it also serves as a means by which they surrender, one to the other, in love. Therefore, conjugal act is not intended for conception, alone. Similarly, not every mature ovum is intended for fertilization, because, even unmarried women develop mature ovum. Furthermore, not every marital act (even when performed during the fertile period) is associated with conception and conception can occur even in barren women (Isaacs mother Sarah and John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth). In other words, God has His plan for the conception of each and every human being. He alone knows His plan. We therefore, do not have an obligation to have conjugal union, every time there is a mature ovum. On the other hand, when we use contraceptive methods, we are deliberately putting barriers to God's plan.

[BIBLE] [/BIBLE] [BIBLE][/BIBLE]

Why is contraception a deadly sin?

Proud member of the Loud Few

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Proud member of the Loud Few

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Similar threads