NFP Bible Only Explainations

[ChristineML]

I disagree with some here who have stated that the Bible does not say anything about artificial birth control methods. The short answer on what the Bible says about artificial birth control methods, withdrawal and “magic” potions:

Gen 38:9-10 – Onan knew, however, that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord; and the Lord took his life too.

For centuries, “Onanism” was the generic term for all artificial birth control methods, including withdrawal. Even the early Protestant reformers vigorously condemned it. Some modern scholars, however, will argue that Onan was killed for his selfishness in refusing to conceive children for his dead brother’s name, not for his contraceptive act. However, the penalty for defying Levirate law was not death, but public humiliation. See Deut 25:5-10 below. Also, Tamar’s father-in-law Judah and other brother-in-law Shelah were also guilty of refusing to conceive children for their son/brother Er, but they were not killed, only Onan was. Therefore, it must have been what Onan DID – withdrawal during intercourse – that merited death, not his mere intention to avoid children for his brother.

Deut 25:5-10 – When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’

In the New Testament, the Greek term “pharmakeia,” the root from which we get “pharmacy” and “pharmaceuticals,” literally means “herbal potions mixed for secret purposes, with prayers to the spirits for greater effectiveness.” Thus, it is frequently translated as “witchcraft” or “sorcery.” Many scholars believe “pharmakeia” refers to contraceptive and abortifacient herbs, especially since it is always condemned within a list of sexual sins:

Gal 5:19-20 – Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Rev 9:21 – Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic potions, their unchastity, or their robberies.

Rev 21:8 – But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Rev 22:15 – Outside [the heavenly city] are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the idol-worshipers, and all those who love and practice deceit.

The above verses directly touch on the birth control question, but much more can be said about related subjects such as self-giving love (agape vs. eros), covenant unity of marriage, children as blessings, generosity in parenthood, sterility as a curse, oral traditions (some of which are reflected in the writings of the early Church Fathers, which some Protestants will accept as accurately reflecting the teaching the apostles received from Jesus), teaching authority of the Church, Christian discipleship, fraternal correction, etc. See the Bible verses I listed in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=193658

 

[ChristineML]

As for biblical principles concerning how many children to have, I include a section on
Children as Blessings
Ps 127:3 – Behold, children are a gift from the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Ps 128:1-4 – Blessed are all who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways…blessings and prosperity will be yours. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table. Thus is the man blessed who fears the Lord.

and a section on Generosity in Parenthood
Lk 6:38 – Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Mt 18:5 – And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My Name welcomes Me.
Mt 25:40 – …Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.

Most people would agree that money (comfortable financial situation) and good health are blessings from God, and most would also agree that it takes hard work to achieve and maintain them: years learning a marketable skill, long hours each week earning one’s livelihood, self-discipline in spending and saving, good financial stewardship and planning, etc. in the money arena and sensible diet, good nutrition, regular exercise, regular medical check-ups, etc. in the health arena. Would anyone want these blessings of wealth and health, “but not TOO much of them” because that’s too much work? I see a similarity with the issue of children: yes, it is HARD WORK bearing and raising children, but aren’t the rewards worth it? Can’t we trust God that He has good things in store for us, growing in generosity and holiness by welcoming more children than the “one or two and no more, because kids are just too much work” mentality?

So I would argue that it’s BIBLICAL to welcome as many children as God sends, that should be our default position, EXCEPT during a “time of distress.” (See 1 Cor 7:26, 29 – So this is what I think best because of the present distress…From now on, let those having wives act as not having them.) When that time of distress is over, and you should be actively working to improve your circumstances, you could welcome children once again.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Is it biblical to intentionally space children? If so, what methods are biblically acceptable?

Mt 4:5-7 – Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the the test.”

Can’t find the verse, please help, someone: There’s a parable told by Our Lord in which He says, “What man starts to build without first calculating the cost and whether or not he has the resources to start what he has finished? Lest his neighbors laugh at him and say, 'This man could not finish what he started.”

In my opinion, deliberately conceiving child after child in spite of unemployment, homelessness, seriously ill health of either parent or children, being overwhelmed psychologically by the intense neediness of several small children very close together, etc., is “putting the Lord your God to the test.” If you should accidentally conceive then it is time to trust in the Lord to provide, or if you actively work to improve your circumstances before conceiving again, that is showing Christian prudence, wisdom, and self-control:

Gal 5:22-24 – But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

As I wrote in another thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=193658, the Lord understands that there are times and situations not ideal for bearing children. But in such a “time of distress,” the Lord did NOT say, “Go ahead and engage in contracepted sex.” Rather, the Lord said, “Do not marry,” “Act as not having a wife” (in other words, refrain from sexual relations), and “Refrain from sexual relations by mutual consent and for a time.”
…

Thanks so much for your advice and thoughts! I have passed much of this info along to my friend. I’ll have to put this info in my “toolbelt” for later discussion with others.

 

[regchrist32]

Thanks for all the responses thus far. However I want to steer things back to the specific questions of my friend. He and his wife are firmly pro-life / open to life. They just need to understand how this fits with controling the spacing of children. In other words, “if we should trust God with our fertility and be open to life, then why is it okay to regulate spacing?” I can understand that confusion. If we are saying we are open to life and trust God’s will with one breath, how can we try to control the spacing?

LIke I said, he is mainly concerned with spacing of children and the biblical principles / support for this. The biblical “back up” for any response is a must!

Thanks!

The problem is simply that your friend does not have the right theological basis for using NFP.

Many people, particularly Protestants, think that the reason we use NFP is because we need to ‘trust God with our fertility’. Their reasoning is this:

1. If you use NFP you ‘might’ still get pregnant. Vs contraception, which will probably not allow you to get pregnant.
2. Therefore, those of us who use NFP are ‘trusting’ God with our fertility…i.e., trusting God, rather than ourselves, to plan our family.

OF COURSE, if that is the reasoning behind your use of NFP, then you are going to get stuck in a vicious circle trying to figure out how ACTUALLY using NFP is ‘trusting’ God with your fertility. Because NFP is very effective, and in reality gives YOU, the married couple, a whole heck of a lot of CONTROL over whether or not you get pregnant.

The whole point of NFP is that you use your God-given reason, and ability to PLAN for the future, to work WITH God to determine when to have children.

How is NFP different than contraception then?

In two ways, but we will focus on one here.

1. NFP is different than contraception in that it keeps both the UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE ends of the marital act together.

For a beautiful explanation of this, go to:
catholic-pages.com/morality/chaput.asp
A letter from Archbishop Chaput on Contraception.

1. T is also different than contraception in that, when couples use it, they MUST use it with the attitude in mind that they will accept children as they come, UNLESS, for reasons social, economic, pyschological or physical, they will not be able, at that time, to give a new child (and the other members of the family) the proper care for his/her NEEDS (not wants, but real needs).

So basically, when spacing kids (which you should always do through both prayer and reason), you want to be as generous as you can, but also prudent enough that you can care for your family. This will look different to different couples, but I think we all will be able to tell when we are looking for ‘convenience’ vs really trying to make sure we are meeting everyone’s needs.

---

Let me add that if you are looking for a strictly Biblical basis for anything, then you don’t understand the Bible…because the Bible was not meant, in and of itself, to explain every aspect of Christianity… AND interpretation of the Bible has always been guided by the authority of Christ’s successors.

 

[Mike12]

Kimberly Hahn may have written something that will help. As I recall, she was against Birth Control before either she or Scott was Catholic.

 

[tc2011]

You’re not going to find Biblical support for NFP (at least not to avoid children), unless you fabricate it (as some people with this “free for prayer” stuff seem to be doing. the referenced Gaudium et Spes (50.2) cites 1Cor7:5 to support self-sacrifice and to point out that abstinence is to some degree self-sacrificial, not NFP per se.). [Actually I’m second guessing the translation of the relevant passage on vatican.va. I’ll follow up after I have a chance to look at this more closely. Here’s the Latin, knock yourselves out till I get back: Ita coniuges christiani, divinae Providentiae confidentes et spiritum sacrificii excolentes (117), Creatorem glorificant atque ad perfectionem in Christo contendunt, cum procreandi munere generosa, humana atque christiana responsabilitate funguntur.]

“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’” (Luke 23:29)

If anything, in the Old Testament, NFP to achieve conception was law; intercourse was not permitted during a woman’s menstrual (i.e., certainly infertile) period.

NFP used without out “grave cause” is never permitted. And then, it is only permissible to avoid “additional children.” If a couple is wanting to avoid children right off the bat because they’re not in a position to start a family, then they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

NFP used without out “grave cause” is never permitted. And then, it is only permissible to avoid “additional children.” If a couple is wanting to avoid children right off the bat because they’re not in a position to start a family, then they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.

I understand your point and agree with you, however, that’s not really anything practical to tell a couple seeking God’s guidance. They need advice, not a lecture.

However, this particular couple just had their first child (conceived 1 month after marriage). They are trying to avoid a second until the husbands job situation settles and they can get reliable benefits.

 

[tc2011]

They need advice, not a lecture.

Fair enough. It still bears pointing out that a little more care might be taken…

But so far as advice goes, you’re not going to find support for avoiding children in the Bible. It’s just not there. It’s not. You might as well stop looking and asking…because it’s not in there. If someone has an argument to the contrary, by all means I’d like to hear it, but mostly because I’ll get a laugh out of seeing just how far they’ll go to rationalize things…because avoid children is not supported by the Bible. (Although, if someone actually has a valid argument, I’d be happy to admit I’m wrong.)

Catholics abuse NFP pretty regularly, but for someone who relies solely on the Bible, it’s arguably not even an option. If I were you, I’d advise total abstinence and a heck of a lot of prayer. And even that’s a stretch since the intent is, as a married couple, to avoid children. The Bible is particularly consistent about the bringing forth of children by husband and wife… Them’s the breaks. Sorry.

EDIT: If they’re unwaveringly dependent on a Bible-only justification, it might be more helpful to advise them concerning their financial situation.

 

[johnnyjoe]

This book might be of interest:

Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception (Paperback)
by Sam Torode (Author), Bethany Torode (Author),

You might also google for the Quiver Full groups, they are Protestant.

The last time I checked, the Torode’s had pretty much reversed their views in this area. They are OK with contraception now…

 

[johnnyjoe]

NFP used without out “grave cause” is never permitted. And then, it is only permissible to avoid “additional children.” If a couple is wanting to avoid children right off the bat because they’re not in a position to start a family, then they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.

“grave cause” is an abuse of the latin in Humane Vitae. The proper latin translation is “serious reason”, and Pope Paul VI explicitly included PRUDENT considerations toward the proper provision of the children already born to the marriage, AND the health & welfare of the spouses.

One doesn’t have to have one foot in the “grave” to have a just reason to use NFP.

 

[tc2011]

“grave cause” is an abuse of the latin in Humane Vitae. The proper latin translation is “serious reason”, and Pope Paul VI explicitly included PRUDENT considerations toward the proper provision of the children already born to the marriage, AND the health & welfare of the spouses.

One doesn’t have to have one foot in the “grave” to have a just reason to use NFP.

Johnny, would you mind providing us with the Latin phrases and contexts for “serious reason” and “prudent considerations?”

EDIT: In other words, “grave cause” is an accurate translation. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

FURTHER: Your wordplay with “grave” is cute but misleading.

 

[tc2011]

…
As I wrote in another thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=193658, the Lord understands that there are times and situations not ideal for bearing children. But in such a “time of distress,” the Lord did NOT say, “Go ahead and engage in contracepted sex.” Rather, the Lord said, “Do not marry,” “Act as not having a wife” (in other words, refrain from sexual relations), and “Refrain from sexual relations by mutual consent and for a time.”
…

(I Cor 7)

This is taken completely out of context. The text in question has nothing to do with avoiding children. At least not in any way that’s legitimately relevant to NFP…