Ainesis said:
The opposite would mean that there is explicit instruction from God in this manner. Where is that if you suppose that it exists?
The statement was in reference to being accused of putting people in bondage, and I still stand by it. I am by no means trying to keep or put people in bondage.
Okay. But that does not support your premise that the other reason was one of birth control. In the mouths of two - three witnesses, let a thing be established. Where are the other 2-3 witnesses that condemn birth control? if they do not exist, then you err in trying to establish a doctrine around your interpretation of this one verse.
I can gather any two Catholics and myself and cover this verse without any issue therefore meeting your standard with the wrongly applied scripture. I could also gather any number of Protestants as well. I am the only person really still debating it but there are at least two others in this thread in agreement with me, and that's just this thread. The scripture you are attempting to apply is being used wrongly, just as you are accusing me of doing.
Further, I contend that it was not about birth control at all. Look at the text. "And 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." Onan was trying to avoid raising up seed to his brother; that was the issue at hand.
Onan knew that the child he had by Tamar would not be his, but would be his brother's. Maybe he was greedy and did not want his brother's name to continue because without a lineage to his brother, he would get more of his father's inheritance. Maybe he had a grudge against his brother (who was called evil) and thereby did not want to honor him by raising up seed.
Regardless of the reason, what Onan did was evil on many levels because he could have opted not to raise seed to his brother. However, admitting this would have subjected him to a humiliating ceremony before the elders where he and his family would be disgraced. Instead of being a man and taking this disgrace, he chose to be sneaky and try to make it appeasr like he was honoring his brother when he was not.
Such was also an evil act towards Tamar because she would be potentially left with no one to provide for her. Had he acknowledged his reluctance to comply with this act, she would have been free to marry someone outside of the family. Or had he complied, she could have been cared for by her children when they got older. We all know how close to Jesus' heart it was that we ensure ensure widows are taken care of appropriately.
There is no proof you have provided that the sin was related to a condemnation of birth control.
Church history agrees with me, even Protestant church history. The doctrine of birth control being allright is less and 100 years old and in fact still the widest accepted doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly laid out in scripture and is one of the base doctrines of Christianity. There is as much support for the idea that birth control is wrong as there is for the understanding of the Trinity that we have. Are you really willing to apply your criteria for right doctrine to every doctrine?
Not true. Some simply prevent the creation and/or release of eggs to begin with. No fertilization or life then occurs.
And if they fail to do that the next thing they do is stop the egg from implanting, making all versions of the pill abortificants.
That is a rather twisted interpretation of that text. If a husband and wife decide together that they will abstain from sex during certain times, then pray tell, WHO is being denied????
It is exactly what the verse says. It is a mutual verse:
[bible]1 Corinthians 7:5[/bible]
Look at what it says, it speaks of consent but the only reason for giving that consent is a time of prayer and fasting.
By your understanding, a husband and wife must have sex at all times that they are not fasting and praying. Do you really believe this is God's intent?
Married individuals must be always having sex unless they are praying and fasting. They cannnot agree not to have sex so that they can go to work. They cannot agree not to have sex so that they can go to the grocery store. They cannot agree not to have sex so that they can go to church. Only for prayer and fasting? Is this what you are saying??
They must not deny each other. Agreeing to not have sex places, usually the husband, in a position to be denied as he is likely not going to be able to go the whole time it is necessary without feeling the urge. This is ground already well covered in this thread. You really should read the whole thread before attempting to pick apart what is said in one post.
If a man and woman agree that neither desires to have sex at a time, no one is being denied and this text is not applicable.
The text disagrees with you.
And you are the definer of that? Hogwash! You are trying to put others in bondage by forcing your potentially false interpretation of one and misapplication of another Scripture to establish a doctrine that is obviously dear to your heart but has no biblical foundation whatsoever.
The majority of Christendom today and throughout history agrees and has agreed that artificial birth control is wrong, from the church fathers to the reformers all the way up to the 1930's. This is not a new doctrine and my interpretation of scripture is no less potentially false than yours.
I am sorry, but I take unbrage at what you are doing. Regardless of how strongly you feel about this topic (and it is your right to feel that this is a sin) there is no Scriptural basis for you to try and use this as a way to condemn others when God is silent on this matter.
I do not feel God is silent on the matter at all, you can claim the scripture is all day long but I say you overlooking what is in fact laid out and testified to in scripture. Again we go back to applying your logic to all doctrine. You believe in the Trinity and yet is less clearly laid in scripture than this doctrine.
God does not leave His people without instruction. He has given us everything we need to know His will and walk in it. He does not leave such matters to ambiguity. If you have to guess at the meaning of one text and misapply another, then that is not God's revelation, but your own.
I am not guessing at the meaning, I have the wisdom of many, many learned men throughout history backing my position, and I am not misapplying scripture I am applying a straightforward reading of scripture. There is no bondage in what I am teaching, there is bondage in denying the fullness of God's creation and the thought that we have any right to tell God when to bless us and how much to bless us. In fact that is pure arrogance.
If you feel that such is a sin, then you should certainly not partake in any of these activities. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind.
I feel there is enough backing for the pill being wrong and NFP being wrong that I can safely teach those and as such should. If you go through the thread before responding you will see that I have plainly stated over and over that I cannot teach against block methods and call them sinful. It is impolite to comment at the end of a thread because you are commenting without context. Before you respond again please read the rest of what has been said so you have an idea of what I am talking about to begin with instead of basing your idea that I am teaching wrong doctrine on a single post. This is lot like scripture in that aspect, you cannot assume to know what I am teaching without having the context.