Contraceptives?

[Bernergirl]

I posed this question in Philosophy & Ethics after the topic came up in an abortion thread to see what the general response would be. I received some good advice from people in GT as to staying in the realm of the congregational boards as a new Christian (or as one who isn't interested in bloody theological battles). So, in light of taking that advice and seeing what the general response from the CF reformed group would be:

What would you say to a married couple using contraceptives for the purpose of preventing one partner from contracting another's STD?

Someone asked if the STD had been contracted during the/a marriage and I responded that I was really talking in general but I posted three assumptions (and will add a forth) for hypothetical situations.

- The person contracted it through non-sexual means. (HIV, for instance, from the breastmilk of an infected mother or other means.)

- The person contracted it through rape.

- The person screwed up once or twice in the past, asked for forgiveness, and is now in a sticky situation.

- The person was married in the past and either divorced or the previous partner is deceased.

What would you say? "I think..." or "I believe..." answers are all fine and dandy, but something with a little more (scriptural) substance would be appreciated.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I posed this question in Philosophy & Ethics after the topic came up in an abortion thread to see what the general response would be. I received some good advice from people in GT as to staying in the realm of the congregational boards as a new Christian (or as one who isn't interested in bloody theological battles). So, in light of taking that advice and seeing what the general response from the CF reformed group would be:

What would you say to a married couple using contraceptives for the purpose of preventing one partner from contracting another's STD?

Someone asked if the STD had been contracted during the/a marriage and I responded that I was really talking in general but I posted three assumptions (and will add a forth) for hypothetical situations.

- The person contracted it through non-sexual means. (HIV, for instance, from the breastmilk of an infected mother or other means.)

- The person contracted it through rape.

- The person screwed up once or twice in the past, asked for forgiveness, and is now in a sticky situation.

- The person was married in the past and either divorced or the previous partner is deceased.

What would you say? "I think..." or "I believe..." answers are all fine and dandy, but something with a little more (scriptural) substance would be appreciated.

Historically speaking, this issue ties in with some lesser issues of the same nature, and one would think that the church would have learned it's lesson by now. While the church once did speak as a unified voice against the issue of contraception, there is no scriptural evidence to support such a view.

There is plenty of scriptural evidence to suggest that the church should butt out of the marital relationships of it's members. Here's a starting point below:

4Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Hebrews 13:4 KJV​

There is no reason for the church to poke it's nose into how any married couple freely choses to express intimacy in the privacy of their relationship. That would include whether or not contraception is used.

Lots of cults (the Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind) learned that lesson the hard way, when they nearly tore themselves apart with their own form of the inquisition over these matters.

i'm aware that my view is a minority, but there it is.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Bernergirl,

You pose an interesting question. Under the terms that you have set up, I would think such precautions are wise.
+++++

To CDL
I agree with you when you say that contraception is not addressed in Scripture, but I also believe that the Scriptures do make clear that God does want His people (who are married) to produce "Covenant Children" for Him. I think the Roman Catholic position goes to far in one direction, but I think the majority Protestant response has been to go to far in the opposite direction.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

Well, you asked for Scriptural substance, so here it is. Here is one pertinent Scripture passage that pertains to children:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)
​

So we can see clearly that children are a blessing from God, and that to have more children is to be blessed. From this alone, one might conclude that contraception is a bad thing. However, the Bible also tells us that it is perfectly permissible to deny oneself certain blessings, such as the blessing of marriage,

So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. (1 Corinthians 7:38)
​

Based on these Biblical principles, I think that contraception is permissible, provided that it is not used out of a dislike for the prospect of having children. It seems to me that all married couples should be open to the possibility of having children. But some married couples refrain from having children at certain points in their lives for financial reasons. Birth control would be ideal in this case.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has a practice which I think is an excellent idea, though it probably wouldn't go over well in Western cultures. In the EO Church, if a couple wishes to begin using birth control, they must first meet with their spiritual father (usually the priest), so that he can ascertain if they are using it for the proper reasons or not. Marriage is generally considered a private matter, but to open up one's marital life to the church for guidance seems like an excellent idea to me. As it says,

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
​

The church is the insitution that God has ordained in order to safeguard our very souls. As such, it seems fitting that a couple should consult the church in matters of marriage. Again, I know this doesn't go over well in the Western "right to privacy" culture, so I'm not suggesting that God explicitly commands this practice. It's just something I thought I'd throw out there.

One final issue. I'm assuming that when we talk about birth control, we are referring to non-abortive birth control. This would include such things as the condom or the pill, which do not kill a child who has already been conceived. Obviously, any contraceptive method which utilizes an abortifacient ought not to even be considered.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

One final issue. I'm assuming that when we talk about birth control, we are referring to non-abortive birth control. This would include such things as the condom or the pill, which do not kill a child who has already been conceived. Obviously, any contraceptive method which utilizes an abortifacient ought not to even be considered.

This was my first thought, making sure that whatever the contraceptive was, that it was non-abortive.

However, so far none of the posts have addressed what to do if there is a health issue involved.

Unfortunately, I have to run out for an appointment right now!\
CC&E

 

[Bernergirl]

Okay time for more hypothetical situation assumptions?

Condom and/or diaphragm. Both are non-abortive.

 

[bradfordl]

I'd say if the intent was to prevent STD infection, condom would be the the wisest choice, leaving aside any theological arguments. I don't think a diaphragm prevents STD transmission, just pregnancy, and from what I understand, not very well.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

I posed this question in Philosophy & Ethics after the topic came up in an abortion thread to see what the general response would be. I received some good advice from people in GT as to staying in the realm of the congregational boards as a new Christian (or as one who isn't interested in bloody theological battles). So, in light of taking that advice and seeing what the general response from the CF reformed group would be:

What would you say to a married couple using contraceptives for the purpose of preventing one partner from contracting another's STD?

Someone asked if the STD had been contracted during the/a marriage and I responded that I was really talking in general but I posted three assumptions (and will add a forth) for hypothetical situations.

- The person contracted it through non-sexual means. (HIV, for instance, from the breastmilk of an infected mother or other means.)

- The person contracted it through rape.

- The person screwed up once or twice in the past, asked for forgiveness, and is now in a sticky situation.

- The person was married in the past and either divorced or the previous partner is deceased.

What would you say? "I think..." or "I believe..." answers are all fine and dandy, but something with a little more (scriptural) substance would be appreciated.

I'm back!

I wanted to follow up on this because early in our marriage, I became very ill. I don't have an STD, but a chronic illness and the issue of birth control became very real to us.

After much prayer and counsel from our Pastor, we decided to use birth control. I was at the time too ill to be able to care for any more children and I am not sure what a pregnancy would have done to my body. At the onset of my illness, I had a 3 yr old and a 3 month old so I can say with some surety that I would not have been able to care for any more children. I could barely care for the two we already had.

I have never been well enough to discontinue all of the medications and because I take so much medicine, we felt it unwise to have any more children.

It has been a long and painful journey concerning the size of our family. We desired a larger one, but God had other designs for us. He is faithful and loving and over the years He has filled that void in ways that I could not ever imagine.

Just my story and my .02,
CC&E

 

[AndOne]

I think the Roman Catholic position goes to far in one direction, but I think the majority Protestant response has been to go to far in the opposite direction.

So what exactly is the Protestant response that goes too far in one direction? Every Prot response on this issue I've ever heard (with the exception of those groups that hold to the RC view of no bc whatsoever) has been to say that scripture is silent on the specific issue of birth control and therefore the church's position should not be to impose a restriction on birth control or contraceptives. If a protestant husband and wife don't want to use it as a matter of conscious they are usually supported by their church - from what I've seen....

I'm inclined to agree with my man CDL on this issue - and something tells me he is not in the minority on this like he thinks he is. The issue is never about how a husband and wife enjoy or experience intimacy - its always about adultery. In this day and age the church needs to focus on that in great detail and hammer home the sinfullness and vileness of extra-marital sex....

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

So what exactly is the Protestant response that goes too far in one direction? Every Prot response on this issue I've ever heard (with the exception of those groups that hold to the RC view of no bc whatsoever) has been to say that scripture is silent on the specific issue of birth control and therefore the church's position should not be to impose a restriction on birth control or contraceptives. If a protestant husband and wife don't want to use it as a matter of conscious they are usually supported by their church - from what I've seen....

I'm inclined to agree with my man CDL on this issue - and something tells me he is not in the minority on this like he thinks he is. The issue is never about how a husband and wife enjoy or experience intimacy - its always about adultery. In this day and age the church needs to focus on that in great detail and hammer home the sinfullness and vileness of extra-marital sex....

Hey Behe,

Thanks for the response to my post. I would certainly agree that the church should not try to govern the bedrooms of husbands and wives. I have been married for twenty-three years, and no one has tried to interfere in this holy aspect of my marriage, and I would not taken such intrusion kindly. But that was not the point that I was trying to make.

I don't think there is anything inherently sinful about contraception. I would be a hypocrite to say that there was something innately wrong with contraception.

My point is God ordained marriage and sex for a number of things. One of those things is for procreation and having and raising children unto the Lord.

Protestants, from my experiance, have failed to look at, study and teach on the Biblical teaching about the importance for God's people to desire and raise children unto him.

This does not mean that we must practice the "Rythm method" or that sex is "only" for procreation. That is ridicules. I don
t think contraception is unbiblical, but I do believe selfishness is, and think some use of contraception is for sinful reasons. (God alone can see into our hearts and no one can judge another here, because bno one can see in anothers heart.).

My wife and I have four children, and it is amazing to me how many Christians react negatively to the fact that we have more than one ore two children. I think we Protestants need to stop talking about the importance of family and at the sametime looking down on many who are blessed with more than two.

The Scriptres tell us that many children are a blessing, but many modern Protestants seem to think that more than two children are a curse.

That was what I was talking about. Protestants need to look at and preach on what the Bible says on this subject and not take our cues from our secular (more than two children are a burden) culture.

I hope that better explains what I meant.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

Okay time for more hypothetical situation assumptions?

Condom and/or diaphragm. Both are non-abortive.

Sure, I have no problem with either form of contraception.

 

[bradfordl]

I can remember 26 years ago when I was a new christian, and a married brother in the church was talking about getting a vasectomy. I asked why, he said he didn't need any more children. I said the way to do that was to refrain. He looked at me like I was nuts.

I had a vasectomy last year. We have 4.

 

[Imblessed]

I can remember 26 years ago when I was a new christian, and a married brother in the church was talking about getting a vasectomy. I asked why, he said he didn't need any more children. I said the way to do that was to refrain. He looked at me like I was nuts.

I had a vasectomy last year. We have 4.

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at that. It's exactly like me just before I had my first child saying I would NEVER "insert silly statement here"........

The things maturity teaches you........


I have no issues with contraceptives in the marriage, and specifically don't see a problem with it to prevent oneself from getting an STD(It seems only practical to me.......)

I grew up in a large family (I'm the youngest of 9) that was NOT catholic. My mom just didn't believe in birth control, saying that God would give her however many children He saw fit, and she trusted that He would provide for them also. Granted, there were times when we were quite poor, but we never went hungry. I admire that kind of trust!

However, I decided early on that I wasn't going to have any kids at all, that I just wasn't cut out for it. I found out very soon after we got married that I was allergic to contraceptives (imagine that!) so the only way to keep from getting pregnant was the pill. I stayed on the pill for almost 7 years until I started having bad side affects from it. Well, I was in a pickle then, because we couldn't use the contraceptives and I couldn't take the pill.....and the ....ummm "pull-out" method is not terribly reliable ..............

Suprise, suprise, I got pregant!

Now I have 2 precious children and I wouldn't change that fact for anything! God truly does know what's best for you and He'll make sure things happen regardless of what you do to "stop" it.

And I guess 2 was all He wanted me to have also, because I had to have an emergency cecerean with my second one, and my doctor informed me that I wasn't built right to have more children, that I would have to plan on cecereans if I wanted to have more. The only reason I had the first one without a cecerean was because he was 3 weeks early and "just" small enough to fit(barely--they ended up having to get out the 'tongs').

After much discussion and prayer, I ended up going and having the surgery. Thankfully, I feel very fulfilled with my 2 boys.


And what was the point to all this rambling? Well.....I'm not sure now! I think I got off topic! LOL

Oh yeah, the use of birth control......I think it's a personal decision between the married couple and God, and the church shouldn't have a stance on it. Yes, children are a blessing from God and we shoudn't try to squelch that blessing......but I don't think that trying to be responsible about when you have kids is a problem(God did give us a brain and some common sense, why not use it?)

And being the full recipient of God's power here, I can assure you that even people like me who "absolutely are not going to have kids thank you very much" are no match to God's Will!!! (and thank God for that!!)

 

[bradfordl]

Okay time for more hypothetical situation assumptions?

Condom and/or diaphragm. Both are non-abortive.

My wife informs me that her Doctor, who is a pro-life Christian, will not implant a diaphragm because it IS abortive. If that is true, then the condom would seem the better choice.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'm sorry, I had to laugh at that. It's exactly like me just before I had my first child saying I would NEVER "insert silly statement here"........
....
Now I have 2 precious children and I wouldn't change that fact for anything! God truly does know what's best for you and He'll make sure things happen regardless of what you do to "stop" it.
.....
After much discussion and prayer, I ended up going and having the surgery. Thankfully, I feel very fulfilled with my 2 boys.
....
And being the full recipient of God's power here, I can assure you that even people like me who "absolutely are not going to have kids thank you very much" are no match to God's Will!!! (and thank God for that!!)

Amen.

God is a great God.

I believe Rome has gone to far on the issue of contraception. It's use can be, and often is, none sinful.

Still many in the Protestant world go too far and deny fact that children are a blessing from God and he wants his people to have children. Europe and parts of the USA have negative population growth (shrinking populations) because our secular culture is anti-children (plural) and much of it is because we want a bigger house, a nicer car, more toys or we just want don't want to be tied down with children. Much of our (Western) culture looks upon children as a burden and not a blessing. I think this is judgement --no children equals cultural suicide and "all they that hate Me love death." (Prov. 8:36)--

Protestants should teach what the Bible says about the blessings of Children and promote the acceptance of those who have many arrows in their quiver. Protestants should be biblical and see this as a blessing and not a curse.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

My wife informs me that her Doctor, who is a pro-life Christian, will not implant a diaphragm because it IS abortive. If that is true, then the condom would seem the better choice.

(Retuning to the original post) A diaphragm would be of no help in an STD situation anyway. Looks like it will have to condoms are celibacy.

Celibacy before marriage and sexual faithfulness in marriage are the only real/long term answers to above mentioned situation.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[GrinningDwarf]

My wife informs me that her Doctor, who is a pro-life Christian, will not implant a diaphragm because it IS abortive. If that is true, then the condom would seem the better choice.

Are you sure you aren't confusing diaphram and IUD (intra-uterine device)? My understanding is that doctor's don't insert diaphrams; they are inserted by the women before 'the event', and they prevent sperm from ever coming into contact with the egg. IUDs prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall.

 

[bradfordl]

Are you sure you aren't confusing diaphram and IUD (intra-uterine device)? My understanding is that doctor's don't insert diaphrams; they are inserted by the women before 'the event', and they prevent sperm from ever coming into contact with the egg. IUDs prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall.

I'll have to check on that. Wife is out right now.

Amen.

God is a great God.

I believe Rome has gone to far on the issue of contraception. It's use can be, and often is, none sinful.

Still many in the Protestant world go too far and deny fact that children are a blessing from God and he wants his people to have children. Europe and parts of the USA have negative population growth (shrinking populations) because our secular culture is anti-children (plural) and much of it is because we want a bigger house, a nicer car, more toys or we just want don't want to be tied down with children. Much of our (Western) culture looks upon children as a burden and not a blessing. I think this is judgement --no children equals cultural suicide and "all they that hate Me love death." (Prov. 8:36)--

Protestants should teach what the Bible says about the blessings of Children and promote the acceptance of those who have many arrows in their quiver. Protestants should be biblical and see this as a blessing and not a curse.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Something IVe struggled with over the years. At one time was convinced of nearly the RC position, but then began to consider if a couple saw their situation as untenable for more kids, would it be sin to refrain in some way? If it is possible to do so without depriving one another (and I believe it is), then why would it be sin to use contraceptives? After the last child, doctor said another would be detrimental to my wife's health. We eventually went to a more permanent solution (vasectomy), but it has been a real dilemma for us. I suppose we should study diligently, and be fully convinced in our minds as to our positions.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

My wife informs me that her Doctor, who is a pro-life Christian, will not implant a diaphragm because it IS abortive. If that is true, then the condom would seem the better choice.

I think you mean IUD. I think a diaphragm is something inserted up to an hour before you need it and taken out sometime afterwards.....trying not to be graphic or gross.

CC&E

 

[lmnop9876]

back to the OP...
i would say that it isn't wrong to use preventive contraception (not abortive) in these circumstances, in fact, it could be regarded in many circumstances as wrong NOT TO use preventive contraception or to abstain entirely , 1. because you run the very strong risk of infecting your partner (and thus breaking the sixth commandment by not using all lawful means to preserve his/her life), and 2. because you run the very strong risk of harming your children (should any be born, for the same reasons as with your partner).