Contraception

[A_Thinker]

The natural end (or goal) of sex is procreation. It's the means we were given to accomplish the goal of repopulating our species. Contraception involves using the sexual faculty while actively frustrating the ends for which it exists. Ultimately, the argument for contraception boils down to pleasure. Why would we desire to have sex without the "risks" of conceiving a child if there weren't "something to gain"?

Paul gives another goal/end of procreation (i.e. to bind the husband and wife). There is much to gain in this.

To make sex only for the goal of procreation ... makes it particularly utilitarian ...

 

[A_Thinker]

humanity in general.

It was repeated to Noah and his sons.

I agree with the generality of the command ...

 

[Mountainmike]

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

Which is largely irrelevant. The bible is not the only source of truth, nor is it unambiguous, both of which are easily provable. Indeed the bible itself supports tradition , and church authority as truth, as do those taught by apostles.
And in this case the fathers comments precede the New Testament canon!

 

[Tree of Life]

Which is largely irrelevant. The bible is not the only source of truth, nor is it unambiguous, both of which are easily provable. Indeed the bible itself supports tradition , and church authority as truth. And in this case they precede the New Testament canon!

It is irrelevant that someone's view is not supported by Scripture? Why should I accept there view if it cannot be demonstrated to be God's view?

 

[Mountainmike]

It is irrelevant that someone's view is not supported by Scripture? Why should I accept there view if it cannot be demonstrated to be God's view?

God's view is not ( necessarily) the same as your opinion of scriptures view.

Without tradition you cannot know what scripture means, and there is clearly truth outside it, scripture says so, and proves it in other ways: even Jesus refers to truth outside scripture!

This is not really the place for yet another thread about the limitations of sola scriptura. On this thread let us agree to disgagree. I suggest you read a book like Mark Sheas " by what authority"

 

[Tree of Life]

God's view is not ( necessarily) the same as your opinion of scriptures view.

I agree. My interpretation of Scripture is subject to error. So is everyone else's. But there are people much more faithful and smarter than me, so I'm not saying that it's a free for all. All human interpretation is subject to error.

But the only way that I can know what God thinks is by listening to and interpreting God's Word. So when a teacher of the church comes to me and tells me that contraception is forbidden by God, I expect him to be able to defend this claim by showing that it is true from God's Word. If he cannot do this, then I see no reason why I should accept that his view is authoritative.

The problem with many ECF and even the Reformer's views on contraception is that they're not warranted by Scripture.

 

[A_Thinker]

It is irrelevant that someone's view is not supported by Scripture? Why should I accept there view if it cannot be demonstrated to be God's view?

And this, I think, ... is the crux of the issue.

We cannot find anything ... in the broad history presented in the scriptures ... to support that God, himself, ... feels strongly one way or the other about contraception. We only rightly conclude that God desires that humankind multiplies and fills the earth, which we have done.

There is, certainly, no scriptural support for the idea that sex is just for procreation, as the CC teaches. In fact, the scriptures teach the opposite.

 

[A_Thinker]

Without tradition you cannot know what scripture means,

I know that you have been taught this.

But scripture says different ...

1 John 2:27

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

[JojoM]

1 Corinthians 7 - 8. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
9. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It is obvious why the teaching on this matter didn't change during the first 1,000 years of Christianity. The only Church that existed was the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church, to which He promised the fullness of truth. If a church is already teaching the fullness of truth, its teaching cannot change without becoming untrue. During the next 500 years it was just the Church Jesus founded, and the Orthodox churches, neither of which has ever deviated from the truth on this matter. It should be no surprise that teaching on contraception has changed in some churches over the past few hundred years, once the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism began. Today, for any teaching of original Christianity you can name, there are some Protestant denominations that have changed it, or done away with it altogether.

 

[Mountainmike]

You don't even know what scripture is authorative without the church and tradition.

I agree. My interpretation of Scripture is subject to error. So is everyone else's. But there are people much more faithful and smarter than me, so I'm not saying that it's a free for all. All human interpretation is subject to error.

But the only way that I can know what God thinks is by listening to and interpreting God's Word. So when a teacher of the church comes to me and tells me that contraception is forbidden by God, I expect him to be able to defend this claim by showing that it is true from God's Word. If he cannot do this, then I see no reason why I should accept that his view is authoritative.

The problem with many ECF and even the Reformer's views on contraception is that they're not warranted by Scripture.

 

[A_Thinker]

It is obvious why the teaching on this matter didn't change during the first 1,000 years of Christianity. The only Church that existed was the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church, to which He promised the fullness of truth. If a church is already teaching the fullness of truth, its teaching cannot change without becoming untrue. During the next 500 years it was just the Church Jesus founded, and the Orthodox churches, neither of which has ever deviated from the truth on this matter. It should be no surprise that teaching on contraception has changed in some churches over the past few hundred years, once the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism began. Today, for any teaching of original Christianity you can name, there are some Protestant denominations that have changed it, or done away with it altogether.

Given all of their recent (and likely, not so recent issues around the subject of sex), I don't think that Catholic fruit is much of a testament to the validity of their teachings ...

Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn-bushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As Yahweh's Word, (the Sovereign Creator of all) , All Scripture IS Authoritative (without anything of man/ from man/ from anyone or anything else) , even
without any church
without any tradition

You don't even know what scripture is authorative without the church and tradition.

 

[Mountainmike]

As Yahweh's Word, (the Sovereign Creator of all) , All Scripture IS Authoritative
without any church
without any tradition

Now read what I said....you don't know what scripture is without the church and authority. You only know who authored the books because of tradition and ECF.

The first canon was heretical, the church said so. So why don't you pick that? Lots of books you could choose if you don't care what the church decided.

So if you accept the authority of the church that picked your New Testament, why don't you accept what they said it means?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't believe we are allowed to debate in this section, so as for if anything is right or wrong in your post, that will simply be left up to Yahweh to reveal.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't believe we are allowed to debate in this section, so as for if anything is right or wrong in your post, that will simply be left up to Yahweh to reveal.

I have been saying.. this is the wrong place for another sola scriptura discussion, agree to disagree.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So if you accept the authority of the church that picked your New Testament, why don't you accept what they said it means?

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.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You and I will never agree. I have no idea what anything has to do with sola scriptura, and as noted, proving you wrong or debating you is not permitted in this section/ thread.

I have been saying.. this is the wrong place for another sola scriptura discussion, agree to disagree.

 

[A_Thinker]

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 have no access to the original writers ...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Does Yahweh have access ?

You have no access to the original writers ...