Marriage is for kids

[abacabb3]

Over the years, occasionally in my studies I have dabbled with the historical view of the church pertaining to marriage in light of birth control. Obviously, the Church has always stood against abortion, but what I found surprising is that from Jerome to supposedly Spurgeon you have a pretty solid consensus that the point of marriage is procreation and one "turns his wife into a harlot" in the words of Augustine if one has sex for pleasure and by means of birth control prevents pregnancy.

This started bothering me yesterday, because usually one can look to the consensus of the Church as a means of assuring right Scriptural interpretation. However, this one has me stumped. The Scripture calls children a blessing, but it also speaks of the marital union chiefly as a means of managing sexual desire (1 Cor 7). How can marriage be predicated upon the teaching "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" and elsewhere where Paul instructs widows to marry because "when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married," but not be about managing sexual desire?

Why would the Church universally ignore this are condemn the few that didn't (i.e. Jovanius) as heretics? Are we modern-people being the heretics?

 

[theFijian]

Isn't the primary reason Eve was made was that it was not good that Adam be alone, 'filling the earth' was a secondary reason.

 

[abacabb3]

Any replies? Does it concern anyone here that Spurgeon was supposedly against birth control?

 

[theFijian]

Any replies? Does it concern anyone here that Spurgeon was supposedly against birth control?

He's dead so he can no longer procreate anyway

 

[JM]

Any replies? Does it concern anyone here that Spurgeon was supposedly against birth control?

When it comes to subjects like this we have to break it down to pastoral advice. It isn’t specially stated that we cannot use birth control in scripture (or does it?) and therefore we must make a decision on the matter using a scripture soaked conscience.

 

[abacabb3]

Oh, I have been following Pastoral advice so ultimately he must give an account, so as I. I was just wondering how we can both think one thing and all of the Puritans, Reformers, Church Fathers..almost everyone disagree with us.

 

[gord44]

Maybe sex wasn't their forte so they used religion as a guise to avoid it? Some of the fathers were pretty monkish so they weren't married. Can't figure out those married guys though. I always thought the Bible was clear that sex was a cool act between a married couple. Who knows though. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[JM]

I guess we should define how previous generations defined birth control. Did it include abortion? What types of birth control were available that were not immediately harmful? What was the success rate and if the method failed did it result in damaged being done to the children?
There are important questions.

 

[abacabb3]

Maybe sex wasn't their forte so they used religion as a guise to avoid it? Some of the fathers were pretty monkish so they weren't married. Can't figure out those married guys though. I always thought the Bible was clear that sex was a cool act between a married couple. Who knows though. I wouldn't worry about it.

For 2,000 years? It's hard to keep up something that long if there was nothing to it!

 

[abacabb3]

I guess we should define how previous generations defined birth control. Did it include abortion? What types of birth control were available that were not immediately harmful? What was the success rate and if the method failed did it result in damaged being done to the children?
There are important questions.

They did yes, but often in the same breath included coitus interuptus. I am not sure about Spurgeon. I have to admit, I take more seriously the writings of married church-men then celibates, simply because of the latter's teaching may derive from pride.

 

[gord44]

For 2,000 years? It's hard to keep up something that long if there was nothing to it!

Old traditions carrying over perhaps? I see nothing in the Bible about it really. If I remember right Proverbs talks about enjoying your wife's bosom or something. It's gotta be a strain of monastic tradition carrying over. Plus as mentioned, it could also be pride. I saw similar stuff in Buddhism when there were Buddhists who would look down on anyone that had sex still. Silly.

 

[JM]

coitus interuptus

...and what was their reasoning? That it was wrong to enjoy it?

I wonder if the emphasis was on marriage being the foundation of the family not personal enjoyment...hummm

 

[gord44]

...and what was their reasoning? That it was wrong to enjoy it?

I am sure just to prevent pregnancy. Coitus interuptus still includes the 'climax' of the act.

 

[JM]

If it is forbidden that would forbidden all forms of martial relations unless it was for children.

But I don’t believe that was the universal opinion of the Protestant church. I’m sure many maintained the position of the Roman position but not the Puritans. I’m sure I’ve read that marriage was proper and right, that relations should be had and often. I'll have a look at Baxter's Christian Directory when I get off work. (no, I'm not trying to be punny)

lol

 

[JM]

FOUND IT!!

I should work in a library or something...

Married sex was not only legitimate in the Puritan view; it was meant to be exuberant. Gouge said that married couples should engage in sex:

“with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.” An anonymous Puritan claimed that when two are made one by marriage theymay joyfully give due benevolence one to the other; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort.

http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex

Gouge wrote a set of works on domestic life.

jm

 

[abacabb3]

...and what was their reasoning? That it was wrong to enjoy it?

I wonder if the emphasis was on marriage being the foundation of the family not personal enjoyment...hummm

Augustine said, for example, having sex with one's wife without the intention of impregnating her is equivalent to "turning your wife into a harlot." Martin Luther said the following:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the sperm, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed

So, it had nothing to do with abortion, but the act of spilling the seed in of itself was a violation of nature, just as we would today say that homosexual couplings violate nature.

Luther would uphold enjoying sex, yet divorcing the enjoyment from the desire to have children was something he did not approve of.

The Bible being my authority, it appears to me as clear as day that managing lust is the principle reason for marriage Paul gives in 1 Cor 7. So, why is it so clear to me and not Luther and Augustine?

 

[abacabb3]

FOUND IT!!

I should work in a library or something...

Married sex was not only legitimate in the Puritan view; it was meant to be exuberant. Gouge said that married couples should engage in sex:

“with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.” An anonymous Puritan claimed that when two are made one by marriage theymay joyfully give due benevolence one to the other; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort.

http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex

Gouge wrote a set of works on domestic life.

jm

Again, Luther would say something similar but reject birth control.

 

[JM]

Again, Luther would say something similar but reject birth control.

For the same reason the Arminian rejects Calvinism, Romanism reject sola scriptura, etc.

Sin.

Sin prevents us from figuring everything out perfectly even if the Spirit grants us an understanding of the Gospel this does not mean we are granted perfect light in other matters.

As the CRC wrote, it is a private and disputable matter.

jm

 

[abacabb3]

So how do we know if it is them being blind in sin, or us?

 

[JM]

Looking back we can see if and how they were in error. Aba, you are a student of history and are able to discern by looking at their reasoning, how it jives with scripture and how outside circumstances influenced their opinions. It is more difficult to discern where we are in error because we are in the thick of it. Are both positions equally disputed? Was Luther free from Roman influence? Was Calvin? Certainly not. They, as we, are men of our times…may Christ have mercy on us.