Birth Control

[strengthinweakness]

I would have to disagree here. If you are going to be a stickler on birth control, its all or none; since NFP is a way of avoiding pregnancy, its a form of birth control.

I don't see why it has to be "all or none" regarding all forms of birth control. Now, as I stated earlier, artificial birth control, inherently, does not respect the natural sexual act as God designed it. However, there are major differences between artificial birth control and natural birth control (such as the NFP method), which does not disrupt, or otherwise change, the sexual act as He designed it.

Concerning artificial birth control, The Pill is an abortifacient, and if this fact were more widely known, Christians probably would not use it in such great numbers (at least I like to think so). I truly wish that more Christians would avail themselves of the medical information in Randy Alcorn's book, Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?. I fear, however, that many Christians may not want to know the awful truth about the Pill and its abortifacient qualities. As for condoms or other forms of barrier devices, they are simply man-made contraptions to literally "get in the way of" God's natural design for the sexual act. They result in a lessening-- a mutation, really-- of what God intended the sexual act, and the experience of that act, to be. If a doctor or scientist were to come up with a pill, or other invention, which insured that people could eat and eat without gaining weight, I think that most Christians would see that man-made invention as a defiance of God's natural design for the human body. However, most modern Christians do not view artificial contraception in this way, and to my mind, that is a deep, deep contradiction. We want the pleasure of the sexual act, and the convenience of having it when we want it, without the natural, physical, God-designed result of that act.

However, as I stated in my last post, each and every act of sexual intercourse need not neccessarily result in procreation in order for God's design for the act to be respected. In fact, God's design for the working of the female reproductive system has virtually ensured that not all acts of intercourse will result in procreation. This is why the the Natural Family Planning method is qualitatively different than artificial forms of birth control. NFP respects both the processes of the female body, and the act of intercourse between husband and wife, as God designed them. NFP draws both husband and wife into a deeper awareness of, and sensitivity to, the natural cycles of the female reproductive system. Couples who use the NFP method often testify that it has brought them closer emotionally. Also, nothing about the NFP method changes the nature or the experience of sexual intercourse. The act happens (and is experienced by both husband and wife) as God designed it to happen. As I stated above, artificial birth control changes both the nature and the experience of sexual intercourse-- because, even if "only" from a physical viewpoint, the use of artificial birth control results in something other, and lesser, than what God designed for the sexual act (although I would argue that it negatively affects more than the purely physical aspect of sex too).

 

[strengthinweakness]

OK, here's one for you:


What about someone (wife specifically) who is ill and pregnancy might cause illness to worsen? If illness is worsens, she would not be able to care for children?

Obviously, this was me. I was very ill after the birth of my second child and in bed for a full year. I could not care for my family and we had to have full-time help (my mother). It took a couple of years after that before I could have any semblance of a normal life. My husband and I wanted a larger family but we believe that it wasn't God's will for us.

I know this doesn't fall into the neat category of birth control as most people use it, but we have endured a lot of grief from well-meaning individuals because of our "mostly empty quiver" and "lack of faith". I'm probably just a little bit sensitive, pls forgive me.

CC&E

CC&E, have you ever looked into the Natural Family Planning method of birth control, or the Billings method?

As someone who believes that artificial birth control is, at the very least, not in line with God's natural design for the sexual act, I still would not necessarily say that a husband and wife who do not have several children are exhibiting a "lack of faith." They may be lacking in faith, in that area of their lives, but unless one knows that couple and their situation well, it is difficult and dangerous to speculate, and presumptive and unloving to claim to know, the level of their faith.

As artificial birth control changes both the nature and the experience of sexual intercourse, as God designed it, though, I don't think that a Christian couple should easily jump to the decision to use it. God made the sexual act, and I think that Christians who "interfere" with its natural working and experience with the abortifacient Pill, or with barrier methods, miss out on much of what God has designed for them in the act. The NFP method and the Billings method do not have this inherent problem. I think that the NFP method is more comprehensive and holistic (although I'm not 100% certain-- I should do more research about the Billings method), and if or when I marry, my wife and I will use the NFP method, if at all possible.

 

[inchristalone221]

it is difficult and dangerous to speculate, and presumptive and unloving to claim to know, the level of their faith.

Not to mention impious and pharisaical

In regards to the entire issue, it seems to me that there is no explicit command of scripture, therefore the issue lies within a Christian's liberty. If you believe that the NFP or Billings methods are the only ones that should be used, they are the only ones you should use, but I do not believe that this can be said to be a command for all believers.

 

[battlepig]

I am sincerely interested in hearing some of reasoning of why people would say that artificial birth control (say a condom) does not respect the act of sex as God designed it? Where exactly does God define sex in a way that supports this reasoning? I agree that any method resulting or risking abortions is wrong. For a couple to decide that as a rule in their marriage they are not going to have children is ,in all but the most extreme circumstances, twisted. But if a christian couple decides that they are going to stop at four children, or use birth control for a year or two after child number X so as to let things settle down, i see that as simply prudent and wise use of means God has given us and should be left to the liberty and consciences of the couple before God.

 

[inchristalone221]

But if a christian couple decides that they are going to stop at four children, or use birth control for a year or two after child number X so as to let things settle down, i see that as simply prudent and wise use of means God has given us and should be left to the liberty and consciences of the couple before God.

Or as another example: suppose that I am married while I'm still in graduate school and my future wife and I decide that we shouldn't have children until I'm done with the financial burden of seminary.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Not to mention impious and pharisaical

In regards to the entire issue, it seems to me that there is no explicit command of scripture, therefore the issue lies within a Christian's liberty. If you believe that the NFP or Billings methods are the only ones that should be used, they are the only ones you should use, but I do not believe that this can be said to be a command for all believers.

In regards to your first point, when I stated that speculating, or making definite claims about, about the "level of faith" of a Christian couple with few children was "difficult and dangerous," I meant that it was impious and pharasaical-- and therefore, dangerous. We are in definite agreement there.

To answer your statement about the lack of "explicit Biblical command" concerning artificial birth control, the testimony of the Christian church, from the first centuries after Christ's death until 1930 (the year of the Anglican Church's Lambeth Conference) was that artificial birth control is not a Biblically valid option for Christians. Think about that-- until a mere seventy-six years ago, no Christian church, in the 2,000 years-plus history of Christianity, held that artificial birth control was Biblically valid for believers! That there was no "explicit Biblical command" about the issue was basically a moot point, because it was assumed, from Biblical reasoning, that those who sincerely wished to follow God would never even think of trying to artificially separate what God had naturally joined together-- the act of sexual intercourse and at least the possibility of procreation. If the entire Christian church (including the Protestant Reformers and the Puritans, but also going back over a thousand years earlier) officially held until 1930 that artificial birth control was not a God-honoring option for believers, shouldn't we seriously consider that they may have been right?

There is no Biblical verse that explicitly states, "God the Father is God, Jesus the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." (I am not putting the use or non-use of artificial birth control on the same level as belief in the Trinity here. ) However, when one looks at the totality of the Bible's teaching, the reality of the Trinity is clearly seen. There is no Biblical verse or passage that states, "Do not use artificial birth control." Seeing that God chose to naturally join together the act of secual intercourse and at least the possibilty of procreation though (excluding those times in which a woman's cycle does not allow for procreation, and those cases in which a woman is infertile, by God's providence), isn't it a defiance of God's natural design to artificially separate the two? The NFP and Billings methods do not separate them in this way, as with these methods, the husband and wife simply follow and respect the natural cycles of the female reproductive system. If they choose to have intercourse at those times when she is naturally fertile, they are respecting God's design for her body. If they choose to have intercourse at those times when the wife is not fertile, they are still respecting God's design for her body, as God has ordained that there will be certain times in her cycle when procreation will not happen. (Again, the NFP and Billings methods are not the same as the notorious "rhythm method.") Artificial birth control inherently does not respect God's physical design for the husband, the wife, and/or the act of intercourse, as artficial birth control radically changes both the nature and the experience of sexual intercourse for both husband and wife. As God designed it (and as it will be unless man interferes with it artificially), intercourse is a total "experiencing" of each other for husband and wife, in which absolutely nothing is held back, and each partner, by their physical design, naturally provides sexual enjoyment to (and hopefully also enjoys!) the other in the full physical way that God intended. Now, unless the act is done at those times when a woman is naturally infertile, it was also intended by God to at least include the possibility of procreation. I say "intended," because He designed the sexual act as such. The use of artificial birth control radically diminishes the act of intercourse, as it intentionally, purposefully separates intercourse from the natural, God-ordained procreative cycle and greatly changes the physical experience of the act itself. God knew what He was doing when He created intercourse! There is a reason that artificially "messing with" the natural act, as He designed it, results in a less satisfying physical experience! Perhaps we shouldn't be artificially messing with it at all? Isn't the act of doing so a tacit admission that we think, perhaps, that God's natural design for physical intercourse could use some "tweaking" and/or "improving"?

 

[DrWarfield]

DETERMINISTIC CALVINIST

Is there such a thing as a non-deterministic Calvinist? Surely if one is a Calvinist then they are determinist by definition. Calvinists are determinists, but that is different to believing in "fate".

Regards,
DrWarfield

 

[Proeliator]

Is there such a thing as a non-deterministic Calvinist? Surely if one is a Calvinist then they are determinist by definition. Calvinists are determinists, but that is different to believing in "fate".

Regards,
DrWarfield

I dont know, I have heard that Calvinists are incompatbist, not determinists.

 

[inchristalone221]

Seeing that God chose to naturally join together the act of secual and at least the possibilty of procreation though (excluding those times in which a woman's cycle does not allow for procreation, and those cases in which a woman is infertile, by God's providence), isn't it a defiance of God's natural design to artificially separate the two?

This comes dangerously close to deriving and "ought" from an "is" as they say. We intervene in the "natural" design of things on a day to day basis, that is the essence of technology and dominion.

There is no Biblical verse that explicitly states, "God the Father is God, Jesus the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God."

But there are verses about each individual truth in that statement. The issue of birth control is wholly different than this in that the premises upon which people base their moral arguments are inferrences, not statements of scripture.

 

[DrWarfield]

I dont know, I have heard that Calvinists are incompatbist, not determinists.

Would you please eleborate on your post since I need to know how you are using the term incompatbist before I respond.

Regards,
DrWarfield

 

[James1979]

Condoms or birth control is like saying to God "God I know when its time to have children, right now is not the time"

We are just not putting our trust in the Lord to provide for more children. I think that's the problem, we don't trust God to provide the financial funds to provide for more children coming into the world, its like we know more than God. Genesis 1:28 God commands us to be fruitful, multiply and replenish, this commandment still stands. If we love God, we should keep his commandments as this is in John 14:15. Someone in here mention about Genesis 38, since God was displeased what Onan did, God killed him. I firmly believe God is still displeased in our day just as in the days of Onan.

 

[inchristalone221]

Condoms or birth control is like saying to God "God I know when its time to have children, right now is not the time"

We are just not putting our trust in the Lord to provide for more children. I think that's the problem, we don't trust God to provide the financial funds to provide for more children coming into the world, its like we know more than God.

Would buying insurance be an example of not trusting God to help us through calamity? Would having a bank account be an example of not trusting God to protect our money from theft?

Clearly this reasoning becomes absurd if carried out to its extents. We are called by God to be wise, and there are times it is not wise to have more children.

 

[James1979]

InChristalone221,

Their is nothing in the bible that says we should not put money into a bank or buy insurance for calamity. To put money or not to put money in the bank is not a commandment nor a sin, samething that goes for buying insurance for calamity. But multiply and being fruitful is in the bible, it is a commandment from the Lord.When we use birth control and condomns that's an action of disobedient to what God has said about multiplying and being fruitful. When two people come together in bed, their is no guarantee that you will produce a seed. Only in our century has mankind have thought an idea how to prevent babies coming into the world and have pleasure at the sametime.

 

[inchristalone221]

But multiply and being fruitful is in the bible, it is a commandment from the Lord.When we use birth control and ns that's an action of disobedient to what God has said about multiplying and being fruitful.

As is the command to "trust in the Lord with all your heart" yet we bank our money. I simply do not see the violation of the command in contraception.

 

[James1979]

I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with banking our money in the bank, as it is their for savings or for the things we need at the same time trusting the Lord with all of our heart. I was just pointing out that their is nothing in scripture that says you cannot put money in the bank and that would somehow interfer with your trust in the Lord.

 

[inchristalone221]

I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with banking our money in the bank, as it is their for savings or for the things we need at the same time trusting the Lord with all of our heart. I was just pointing out that their is nothing in scripture that says you cannot put money in the bank and that would somehow interfer with your trust in the Lord.

In much the same way there is nothing that says the use of birth control would interfere with the command to "be fruitful and multiply." Going back to my example of a married graduate student: in such a case the thought of having children would seem patently unwise. Grad students do not have vast amounts of extra time to spend with a child. There does not seem to be anything wrong with such a couple using contraception until the time becomes more wise to have children.

 

[battlepig]

'Be fruitful and multiply' was never meant to be interpreted so strictly.It was certainly never returned to again in the New Testament. It was given to two men, Adam and Noah, and i can think of some special circumstances why God would give it to them. I am not denying that the general rule is that married couples are to have children. But God does not specify how many, nor does he demand them right this instant.

When we go for a car trip and put on our seat beat are we not trusting God to take care of us? Or are we saying we know better than God when we should depart this world? Off course not. We are simply being prudent and wise. God expects us to use means to guard ourselves. As i mentioned earlier, simply because something is a blesssing, ( and children certainly are ) does not mean there is no such thing as too much. Wine and riches are blessings, but can also be terribly abused if not prudently controlled.

I have yet to see a biblical, not 'moral' or emotional argument as to why children are a special case.

Even something as noble as marriage ( 1 Cor 7 ) can get in the way of godly living and must be restricted ( in certain ways ). Why else did Paul say even those married must sometimes be as those who are unmarried? Likewise, having too many children if it is done blindly and not with proper consideration can tempt God for time, money, strength to take care of all of them whilst still maintaining all the duties of the christian life.


Genesis 38:
8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


It seems pretty clear to me that Onan's sin was either his disobedience to Judah, or his selfish refusal to create seed for his brother. This passage says nothing about a married couple practicing birth control. If there was some other passage that condemned BC directly, than we might read Onan's story in light of that, but Genesis 38 cannot be used to prove that BC is sinful.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Inchristalone, you say that as a graduate student, it would be unwise for you to have more children at this point. Why not use the Natural Family Planning method then, which has been shown to be as effective as the Pill in spacing the procreation of children, without the side effects of the Pill (including the possibility of abortions)? Also, the NFP method preserves the natural sexual act exactly as God made it to be, with all of its glorious physical pleasure for husband and wife. The full experience of sexual intercourse is not diluted or diminished at all with the NFP method. As couples everywhere will attest, the same cannot be said of condoms or other barrier methods!

Simply put, God designed the union of a husband and wife in sexual intercourse so that unless it is done at a time in which the wife is not fertile, according to her cycle, there will at least be the possibility that a child will result. Using artificial contraception (any man-made form of contraception that ignores or suppresses the woman's natural cycle) is basically saying, "I don't care how God designed the sexual act to naturally work, and I don't care how He designed the female reproductive system to naturally function-- I want what I want, and I want it when I want it, and if that means that I have to disrupt or disrespect God's natural designs for both the female reproductive system and for sexual intercourse, so be it." Why is it that so few Christians see the use of artificial contraception as anything other than a stunning act of defiance against God's design for our bodies in sexual intercourse? Our bodies do not belong to ourselves. They ultimately belong to God. Who are we, as Christians, to think that we can legitimately disrupt or disrespect the way that He designed the male and female bodies to naturally work together sexually? Until 1930-- for almost 2,000 years--, no Christian church dared to assert that believers had such a right to tamper with God's design for sexual intercourse. By sad and strange contrast, for the past seventy-six years, the majority of evangelical Protestant churches (and, unfortuantely, probably most of the members in those churches) have taken a stance regarding artificial contraception that defies the previous, consistent, almost 2,000-year-old testimony of the Christian church! Why do so few believers see this as a concession to worldliness? Why have we become so easily seduced by the spirit of an age that cares more about pleasure than about honoring how God designed us and how He designed the sexual act? I am not making an "emotional" or a "moral" argument here, any more than the Christian church was making a mere "emotional" or "moral" argument in opposing artificial contraception for almost 2,000 years! I am using Biblical reasoning, just as the early Christian church did, just as the Catholic Church did, in this particular area (even as she arguably did not in many other areas, theologically), just as the Protestant Reformers did, just as the Puritans did, and just as all Christian churches did until 1930 at the Anglican Lambeth Conference.

 

[inchristalone221]

I still do not see the wrong in contraception. The argument that God's natural design includes the possibility of pregnancy holds little water for me because we commonly interrupt "natural" things without such moral qualms. Take an absurd example...airplanes. Is our defying of gravity to get where we want to go wrong because God did not naturally design human being to fly? How does this reasoning differ?

 

[strengthinweakness]

I still do not see the wrong in contraception. The argument that God's natural design includes the possibility of pregnancy holds little water for me because we commonly interrupt "natural" things without such moral qualms. Take an absurd example...airplanes. Is our defying of gravity to get where we want to go wrong because God did not naturally design human being to fly? How does this reasoning differ?

In the Bible, God gives us dominion over creation (provincial, limited dominion, as compared to His, but nonetheless, in His word, He does give us some measure of dominion over creation). There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that He has given husbands and wives that kind of moral dominion over the act of sexual intercourse, to "subdue" it. This is exactly what artificial contraception does-- it "subdues" the natural working of sexual intercourse between man and woman, so that it is fundamentally different from how God naturally designed it. The Bible gives husbands and wives absolutely no license to artificially tamper with His good gift of sexual intercourse in this way.