Contraception

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Every history I've looked at says that until the 20th Cent, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant believed that non-procreative sex, i.e. contraception, was wrong. This moderated in the mid 20th Cent among Protestants. Indeed Southern Baptists even welcomed Rowe vs Wade initially. However conservative Protestants have been moving in a more traditional direction since that time, apparently as part of the "culture wars."

There is certainly no Scriptural position on this, though there are people who think they see it in Scripture.

Medical advancements of the past one hundred or so years have added shades of grey (or so it seems) to the issue. For example, is it wrong for the married couple who have had one or more children to have a medical procedure to prevent having more children? Are they sinning when they have sex without the purpose of procreating? Issues outside of their control can effect their decisions, such as economics, maybe even the health (or age) of one or the other. It's hardly an easy decision, but who is feeding and taking care of the children? The Church? No. Neighbors? No. The parents (maybe with occasional limited help from family?).

 

[RaymondG]

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 say go all the way in, or all the way out. If it is wrong to use contraception at any point.....even if it is not to have children at all.....it should be wrong to use even if you have 10 children already.

I find no fault in conception period...I also find no fault with those who do believe it to be a sin....And there position is even more respectable if they find it a sin is all cases and not just when the window for child bearing is closing with no children born yet.

 

[friend of]

I believe that it is okay to use the gift of sex in such a way that is not exclusive to procreation. Note that this verse does not indicate 'making a baby' to ward of Satan's temptations, but says 'come together again'

1 Corinthians 7:5

Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[concretecamper]

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 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?

The same sola scripturist denominations that held a view against contraception prior to the 1920s are the same SS denominations who now think there is no scriptural basis for it and therefore allow it. It doesn't add up.

Here are some predictions from an old man in a white robe who wants to tell us all what our sex life should be.

1) An increase in marital infidelity.
2) A general lowering of moral standards.
3) A loss of respect for women (man would “reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires”).
4) Governments would coerce people into using contraception and intervene in citizens’ sexual relationships.

 

[AlexDTX]

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 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?

Frankly, up until the 20th century, no one thought that there were too many people on the Earth, and with infant mortality and childhood diseases, having as many children one could have is a logical decision.

The bogus overpopulation myth has been perpetrated by the international globalists who want a smaller population that they can manage, and have succeeded in duping millions of people into thinking they were saving the Earth by not having children. Fools.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Regardless of ss or whatever denomination(s), it does add up as wickednesses and evil throughout the world has increased and possibly in every group (almost without exception) ; so perhaps the 'changes' in (all?) the religious organizations/groups from the earlier centuries are not all unexpected, the only real surprise , so to speak, being "how quickly" ungodliness increased throughout most all places.....

The same sola scripturist denominations that held a view against contraception prior to the 1920s are the same SS denominations who now think there is no scriptural basis for it and therefore allow it. It doesn't add up.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If the church has been clear on this for 1900 years that kind of settles the issue no?

 

[hedrick]

If the church has been clear on this for 1900 years that kind of settles the issue no?

For me, it depends upon why. Was it just a traditional sexual attitude they inherited from their culture, or something like Augustine's bizarre ideas on sex, or is it actually connected with the Gospel?

I'm not convinced it's actually based on the Gospel.

Our ideas on lots of topics have changed in the last few centuries based both on the Enlightenment and science. I don't think it's morally sensible to say I live half my life in the light of that, but somehow ethics haven't changed since 2000 years ago. I'm committed to following Jesus, but not necessarily everything that Christians think Jesus wants.

If Jesus had given us lists of rules, it might be different. But he didn't. He gave general principles, and left it to Christians (though the gift of the power of the keys) to handle specific applications. That's precisely the approach you'd expect if he wanted to make sure the Church could adapt to changing circumstances.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For me, it depends upon why. Was it just a traditional sexual attitude they inherited from their culture, or something like Augustine's bizarre ideas on sex, or is it actually connected with the Gospel?

I'm not convinced it's actually based on the Gospel.

Our ideas on lots of topics have changed in the last few centuries based both on the Enlightenment and science. I don't think it's morally sensible to say I live half my life in the light of that, but someone it doesn't affect ethics. I'm committed to following Jesus, but not necessarily everything that Christians think Jesus wants.

Not all Jesus or the Apostles preached is contained within the Bible. We know there were matters of contention which both sides of any given conflict appealed to the bible for. Now if it is true that no-contraception was the rule in the Church, one of the few things all parties could agree upon, despite it not having explicit support in scripture (though I would say there is implicit support, especially in genesis and from the general principle that sex is not exclusively for pleasure but goes hand in hand with making children) ought we not respect the rule handed down to us by those before us?

If you are going to say that the church's rule concerning contraception is wrong, you ought have a good biblical reason that over powers the tradition entirely. I see no such biblical reason.

 

[Tree of Life]

The same sola scripturist denominations that held a view against contraception prior to the 1920s are the same SS denominations who now think there is no scriptural basis for it and therefore allow it. It doesn't add up.

Which SS denominations held an official position on contraception prior to the 1920s?

 

[hedrick]

Did anyone in the early Church say "I have a tradition passed on from Jesus that contraception should be prohibited?" I don't know Orthodox history, but in the West we know where sexual ethics came from. It wasn't from teachings passed down in secret from Jesus. Sorry.

 

[Tree of Life]

If the church has been clear on this for 1900 years that kind of settles the issue no?

I'm not sure that the church has been clear on it. It appears to me that most of the church has actually been silent on it.

 

[concretecamper]

Which SS denominations held an official position on contraception prior to the 1920s

- that churches of all denominations condemned the use of contraception from the first century through the nineteenth.

You've already answered your question

 

[Tree of Life]

You've already answered your question

Well that is the standard speech. But the more I look into it, the more dubious the claim seems. Are you aware of any Reformed or Protestant denomination which took an official position against contraception prior to the 20th century?

 

[concretecamper]

Well that is the standard speech

To point to the fact you've answered your own question?

But the more I look into it, the more dubious the claim seems.

Then you should have done more research before you post what you now think is a dubious claim....changed your mind rather quickly huh?

Are you aware of any Reformed or Protestant denomination which took an official position against contraception prior to the 20th century

Lambeth Conference to start. Do some reasearch...this assignment for you isn't really that hard.


I am smelling a troll post here.

 

[concretecamper]

Did anyone in the early Church say "I have a tradition passed on from Jesus that contraception should be prohibited?" I don't know Orthodox history, but in the West we know where sexual ethics came from. It wasn't from teachings passed down in secret from Jesus. Sorry.

According to the OP, every denomination previously taught contraception was wrong. And these denominations were SS people. So evidently, they saw something in the Bible to substantiate this teaching.

 

[RaymondG]

If the church has been clear on this for 1900 years that kind of settles the issue no?

Everyone has been doing it for a long time, therefore it must be right? Is this a good reason to do anything?

How long were they teaching the Jewish doctrines in the synagogues before Jesus came and shook things up. Maybe this is the same reasoning the Jewish leader used when Jesus came speaking what seemed new and different.... This is the way it has been for centuries...therefore the issue is settled.....

 

[hedrick]

Well that is the standard speech. But the more I look into it, the more dubious the claim seems. Are you aware of any Reformed or Protestant denomination which took an official position against contraception prior to the 20th century?

I haven't found a full history. However here's a summary of Luther and Calvin: https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f.

I haven't found any official statements from like 17th or 18th Cent denominations. I think I'd need to go to a library or buy a book. This isn't the kind of documentation you're likely to find easily on the web. I've only seen uniform statements that until the 20th Cent (and to some extent the 19th) Protestants uniformly opposed it, at least officially.

Scriptural references seem to have been Gen 1:28 and the Onan story. Onan is irrelevant, as much people today acknowledge. I think this is also putting way too much weight on Gen 1:28 than it can bear. It's simply the obvious statement when there were only 2 people, God expected humanity to expand. God certainly never says that we should have as many children as possible, or that in a very different kind of world, contraception is wrong. This use of Gen 1:28 is a typical example of people who use Scripture to justify something they already believe for other reasons.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, the early Church opinion was for different reasons that I described above. Early Christian attitudes were almost the opposite of Augustine's. For them, attitudes were connected with the admiration of virginity. That was connected in complex ways with the Christian invention of free will. Paul was cited as the basis for the ideal of virginity. But again, when you look at the actual passage in Paul and how it was used, it's pretty clear that this is a gross overinterpretation of Paul. There were, however, reasons in late antiquity why the Christian approach was attractive, particularly for women.

I find it interesting that the Church has over time taken three completely different approaches to sex, before Augustine, since Augustine in the Catholic tradition, and Luther. Yet all oppose non-procreative sex, though for very different reasons.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Everyone has been doing it for a long time, therefore it must be right? Is this a good reason to do anything?

How long were they teaching the Jewish doctrines in the synagogues before Jesus came and shook things up. Maybe this is the same reasoning the Jewish leader used when Jesus came speaking what seemed new and different.... This is the way it has been for centuries...therefore the issue is settled.....

Jesus, being the son of God and God's fulfillment of all the expectation of the Torah and Old Testament had a legitimate cause to create a new way of doing things. We today in the 20th century who are none of those things and not even Prophets have no cause to go against what we have received.