History of Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tennis77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tennis77

Guest
I was wondering why, before 1930, all Christian Religions (All Protestants included) condemned contraception, but, progressively after 1930, most, if not all Protestant denominations allow and do not fight contraception as sinful. What exactly do they claim happened in 1930 that can allow a teaching to be reversed? If Protestants believe in Sola Scriptora, then how can this teaching change, because the Bible certainly hasn’t changed, which is the only authority that they recognize.

All answers are appreciated.
Thanks
 
More on that, here is the wording of the actual resolution:

lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm
**Resolution 15
Click to expand...
****The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex **
Click to expand...
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Click to expand...
Voting: For 193; Against 67.
Click to expand...
 
Tennis77 said:
If Protestants believe in Sola Scriptora, then how can this teaching change, because the Bible certainly hasn’t changed, which is the only authority that they recognize.
Click to expand...
There’s the rub. If I plop the Bible in front of you and say that you must extract every rule about every life possibility from there, you’d be hard-pressed to make sense of it.

Since Protestants claim that a book is the ONLY authority, then anyone reading that book can interpret some passages differently. And since there is no visible authority, who’s to say that one interpretation is correct?

If given enough time, just about every non-Catholic Christian group will hold a belief that seems astonishing to Catholics. You bring up the case of contraception, which seemed to have unanimity before 1930. Well, what about abortion, which every Christian condemned until a few decades ago? What about so-called “gay marriage,” which any Christian would have rebuked (or probably laughed at) in the 1940s?

Those things are all clearly anti-Christian. But even if forbidden by the Bible itself (such as homosexual acts), you’ll find someone who claims that it’s now OK!

So I don’t have a great answer for your original question … I’m just saying that it’s not a surprise when you’ve rejected the very authority given by Christ: His Church.
 
Luther on another occasion commented on the very same passage: “But the exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches, follows. [here Luther quotes Gen. 389-10] Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him. …That worthless fellow…preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 7, p. 20-21)
Click to expand...
I guess the order of nature was no longer important and they redefined what “unchastity” means in the Bible…
“Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: ‘Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden alone and not load myself with misery and want.’ But this blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God’s goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God’s blessing. For if you had trust in God’s grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 5, p.332).
Click to expand...
 
surritter said:
There’s the rub. If I plop the Bible in front of you and say that you must extract every rule about every life possibility from there, you’d be hard-pressed to make sense of it.

Since Protestants claim that a book is the ONLY authority, then anyone reading that book can interpret some passages differently. And since there is no visible authority, who’s to say that one interpretation is correct?
Click to expand...
So true. Personally, I think it has become a matter of convenience. The Bible is now being interpreted and passages taken out of context constantly to help people make a point that isn’t actually true in the Bible. It really saddens me. Contraception is not biblically supported, but it is more convenient than NFP, which takes more effort and communication. Why would God give us the message that we are powerful enough to give us ultimate control of whether we have kids or not at our convenience. It is important that we trust in God, especially over man’s inventions. Contraception completely removes God from the picture - blocks him out, and attempts to tell him no - while NFP leaves it ultimately in the hands of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top