I've never heard this argument before

[Janks]

One of the arguments I’ve heard online, ever since that Times article on only children popped up, is that St. Paul advocated against children. In 1 Cor. 5:32-34 St. Paul writes that an unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord while the married man is anxious about the things of the world. Basically their argument was that since St. Paul thought marriage was a hindrance to spiritual advancement, he would be against children too. Yeah, my head spun a little at the argument. So, how do I respond?

 

[TheQuestioner]

hmmm…

St. Paul believed that the celibate life was better than the single life, therefore St. Paul is against having children?

Does the first part necessarily imply the other? Ask yourself this. As it would require a quote by St. Paul directly related to how he felt about children, this argument is poor because it is based off of too much speculation.

Was it Peter or Paul who re-iterated the message that in marriage two people become one flesh? I know Paul tells husbands to love their wives and take care of their families. This would make Paul’s position on children more positive.

 

[Michael1985]

In 1 Tim 4:2 St Paul says

“…through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

When the verse for Corinthians is properly understood we can see that St Paul is not against marriage it is a gift from God.

 

[teachccd]

Any text taken out of context is a pretext… This brings out a fine example. Jesus said,“Let the children come to me”. AND the entire message of Jesus is likened to a marriage feast. It never ceases to amaze me how private interpretation of Scripture can give birth to the most outrageous ideas… teachccd

 

[Dale_M]

Its been about 30 years since I studied the first centuries of the Church, so I can’t cite specifics. But as I recall, during the first century of Christianity, it was widely expected that Christ’s return and the end of the world was imminent. And since celibacy was seen as spiritually superior, many Christians avoided sex. Why have children if the world will end at any moment, and doing so might endanger their souls? This posed a threat to the future of Christianity since relatively few children were being born to Christians It was an issue that the Church Fathers had to wrestle with, and ultimately they did approve of sex as not spiritually harmful.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Its been about 30 years since I studied the first centuries of the Church, so I can’t cite specifics. But as I recall, during the first century of Christianity, it was widely expected that Christ’s return and the end of the world was imminent. And since celibacy was seen as spiritually superior, many Christians avoided sex. Why have children if the world will end at any moment, and doing so might endanger their souls? This posed a threat to the future of Christianity since relatively few children were being born to Christians It was an issue that the Church Fathers had to wrestle with, and ultimately they did approve of sex as not spiritually harmful.

Please cite this.

 

[Dale_M]

Please cite this.

I apologize, but I took the course 30 years ago, and don’t remember the book’s title or author. It was part of course which looked at Church history during the first centuries. I discarded the book long ago as part of paring down my belongings prior to a cross country move.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Its been about 30 years since I studied the first centuries of the Church, so I can’t cite specifics. But as I recall, during the first century of Christianity, it was widely expected that Christ’s return and the end of the world was imminent. And since celibacy was seen as spiritually superior, many Christians avoided sex. Why have children if the world will end at any moment, and doing so might endanger their souls? This posed a threat to the future of Christianity since relatively few children were being born to Christians It was an issue that the Church Fathers had to wrestle with, and ultimately they did approve of sex as not spiritually harmful.

Please cite this.

I’ve often heard it said that the early Christians felt that the world would end very soon, so they discouraged marriage and families. Plus, living in a time of persecution would naturally make you think twice about marriage and families.

His statement that sex was seen as spirtually harmful does ring true in light of the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome regarding marriage, sex, and families.

I hadn’t heard that Christians had very few children. On the one hand, I’m suspicious, since the Romans had a nasty habit of killing and abandoning their children (who were often then adopted by Christians and raised in the Faith). On the other hand, I could see how Christians raised on the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome could be very hesitant to marry and have children of their own, since their writings give the impression that marriage and sex are incompatible with holiness and have no value in and of themselves.

I think it’s possible that the Romans gave birth to more children than the Christians, but the Christians raised more children than the Romans. However, in the absence of birth certificates baptismal records, and census data, it would be difficult to prove.