Protestants and Contraception

[Kay_Cee]

Yes.

Which is why I asked for the documentation for it.

Your question is based on your statement that every denomination in history until 1930 had an official denominational position condemning all forms of contraception as “immoral.” Okay, where’s the documentation for that?

Then you stated that these denominations “reversed” themselves, made a “180 degree” change after 1930. Okay, where’s the documentation for that?

How can anyone possibly address your question based on these two statements unless the statements are confirmed as correct?

As I posted, I did. It listed opinions of 6 persons and a statement from Dort. The latter MIGHT be some indication of a position of some Calvinist denomination (I’ve no clue which - if any) but that’s hardly indicating that every denomination in history prior to 1930 had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as “immoral.” Or that they “did a 180” or “reversed” their prior official denominational position after 1930 (or any other date you may choose).

Thus, my requests to you.

You are saying it is a “fact” that there has been a “complete reversal” - that before 1930 (maybe you’re changing your mind about the date?) every denomination in history had an official denominationational position condemning all forms of contraception as “immoral.” Okay. Document that. The opinions of 6 persons has nothing to do with denominations or official positions or all denominations - document that all denominations in history had an official position condemning all forms of contraceptions as “immoral” then document that these made a “180 complete reversal” and now they have an official denominational now stating that all forms of contraception are “moral.”

It is your permise. Your question is based on it. You need to document it as true before we can discuss your question based on it.

.

I have already shown quotes from Reformation leaders condemning contraception. Absolutely everything I have read points to the 1930 Lambeth Council being the ***first ***to allow contraception.

I have already provided links that state this.

If you don’t understand this, I suggest a dictionary so you can look up the words “first” and “allow.”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I have already shown quotes from Reformation leaders condemning contraception.

You have repeatedly stated that your premise is that “all denominations” prior to 1930 “officially condemned” all forms of contraception as “immoral.” 6 individual personals is not all denomination, apples and oranges.

Before we can address your premise, you need to document the premise as correct. That requires:

1. Documentation that all denominations in history (before 1930 anyway) were officially condemning of all forms of contraception as immoral. So far, you haven’t shown ANY denomination prior to 1930 as being so officially condemning all forums of contraception. Not one. So, that part of the premise stands unsubstantiated.
2. Then you need to document that several of them officially “reversed” and did a “180 degree” change as you’ve been stressing. You need to document that they officially REVERSED the earlier documented position. Now, you’ve shown ONE denomination TAKING a stand in 1931 - but nothing to document that this was a reversal of an earlier official stance. So far, you’ve not shown that even ONE denomination “reversed” their earlier official position on this.

Document your premise or we can’t discuss it.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Kay_Cee]

You have repeatedly stated that your premise is that “all denominations” prior to 1930 “officially condemned” all forms of contraception as “immoral.” 6 individual personals is not all denomination, apples and oranges.

Before we can address your premise, you need to document the premise as correct. That requires:

1. Documentation that all denominations in history (before 1930 anyway) were officially condemning of all forms of contraception as immoral. So far, you haven’t shown ANY denomination prior to 1930 as being so officially condemning all forums of contraception. Not one. So, that part of the premise stands unsubstantiated.
2. Then you need to document that several of them officially “reversed” and did a “180 degree” change as you’ve been stressing. You need to document that they officially REVERSED the earlier documented position. Now, you’ve shown ONE denomination TAKING a stand in 1931 - but nothing to document that this was a reversal of an earlier official stance. So far, you’ve not shown that even ONE denomination “reversed” their earlier official position on this.

Document your premise or we can’t discuss it.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

You are defining “official” as “requiring documentation.” I am not. I am defining it as “supported by or derived from authority” which is a dictionary definition. Since Protestant churches consistently *taught *that contraception was immoral, that was their position supported by the authority of their teachers. Now they *teach *that contraception is not immoral. That is a position supported by the authority of their teachers now.

It is a 180 degree reversal to say that something previously held to be immoral is now moral. The fact that the Anglican church was the *first *to declare this means that all others were consistent in their positions up until that time.

I am the OP, so I have the prerogative of defining the terms, since I knew what I meant when I posted.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You are defining “official” as “requiring documentation.” I am not. I am defining it as “supported by or derived from authority” which is a dictionary definition. Since Protestant churches consistently *taught *that contraception was immoral, that was their position supported by the authority of their teachers. Now they *teach *that contraception is not immoral. That is a position supported by the authority of their teachers now.

Then…

1. The denomination is not teaching it, and you need to change your premise. SOME PERSONS who were registered in congregations officially associated with a denomination had the opinion that it was immoral. Friend, that’s a WHOLE OTHER issue. I can find you quite a few Catholics who are of the opinion that contraception is prefectly okay - that doesn’t mean THAT is the official (you stressed that word in embolden font) of the denomination.
2. You quoted Luther. Nice. But Luther is not an authority in ANY of the 300+ Lutheran denominations. The Authority is Scripture and (under that) the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord. Luther had LOTS of opinions - some are often held by Lutherans today, some are totally rejected by Lutherans today. He never was an authority in ANY Lutheran denomination. If you are going to say that my denomination has an official denominational position, you need an official statement of the denomination. I’ll save you the effort - there never has been on this topic, and still isn’t. Now, I’'m guessing most pastors would agree with Luther on this point (they would probably also agree that beer is a good drink) but personal opinions of individuals has nothing to do with **official denominational **positions. AT THE VERY LEAST, that would require a resolution made in an official convention of the denomination (and actually, such isn’t always an official position). Actually, best would be a declaration in the official Confessions (but that hasn’t happened in Lutheranism since 1560). Your premise is unsubstantiated.

The fact that the Anglican church was the *first *to declare this means that all others were consistent in their positions up until that time.

1. ONE denomination (actually, just one Province of one denomination) is not EVERY denomination. Your premise is unsubstantiated.
2. No. To have no official position and then to have one is obviously not a “reversal” a “180 degree change” as you repeatedly have stressed is the case and have noted is your premise. It means to TAKE a stance, not to REVERSE a stance. Your premise is unsubstantiated.

There’s no way to discuss your premise since you’ve not substantiated it as being true.

.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Just as an aside a Papal Council voted 30-5 to relax its position on birth control in 1966, but the pope at the time thought the faithful could not handle that on top of Vatican II and rejected it (IMHO the second biggest mistake the church made in the 20th century). Later, Pope Paul I stated he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Then…

1. The denomination is not teaching it, and you need to change your premise. SOME PERSONS who were registered in congregations officially associated with a denomination had the opinion that it was immoral. Friend, that’s a WHOLE OTHER issue. I can find you quite a few Catholics who are of the opinion that contraception is prefectly okay - that doesn’t mean THAT is the official (you stressed that word in embolden font) of the denomination.
2. You quoted Luther. Nice. But Luther is not an authority in ANY of the 300+ Lutheran denominations. The Authority is Scripture and (under that) the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord. Luther had LOTS of opinions - some are often held by Lutherans today, some are totally rejected by Lutherans today. He never was an authority in ANY Lutheran denomination. If you are going to say that my denomination has an official denominational position, you need an official statement of the denomination. I’ll save you the effort - there never has been on this topic, and still isn’t. Now, I’'m guessing most pastors would agree with Luther on this point (they would probably also agree that beer is a good drink) but personal opinions of individuals has nothing to do with **official denominational **positions. AT THE VERY LEAST, that would require a resolution made in an official convention of the denomination (and actually, such isn’t always an official position). Actually, best would be a declaration in the official Confessions (but that hasn’t happened in Lutheranism since 1560). Your premise is unsubstantiated.
3. ONE denomination (actually, just one Province of one denomination) is not EVERY denomination. Your premise is unsubstantiated.
4. No. To have no official position and then to have one is obviously not a “reversal” a “180 degree change” as you repeatedly have stressed is the case and have noted is your premise. It means to TAKE a stance, not to REVERSE a stance. Your premise is unsubstantiated.

There’s no way to discuss your premise since you’ve not substantiated it as being true.

.

You are once again demanding a definition of “official” that I am not using.

That means, by your own criterea, that the discussion with you cannot even begin since “There’s no way to discuss your premise since you’ve not substantiated it as being true.”

You will, in other words, have to show that your definition of “official” is the one I am using.

It is not. End of discussion.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Just as an aside a Papal Council voted 30-5 to relax its position on birth control in 1966, but the pope at the time thought the faithful could not handle that on top of Vatican II and rejected it (IMHO the second biggest mistake the church made in the 20th century). Later, Pope Paul I stated he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them.

I realize you put this in here as an aside, but I would appreciate it if posts remain on topic. This thread is not about Catholicism.

Thank you.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You are once again demanding a definition of “official” that I am not using.

That means, by your own criterea, that the discussion with you cannot even begin since “There’s no way to discuss your premise since you’ve not substantiated it as being true.”

You will, in other words, have to show that your definition of “official” is the one I am using.

It is not. End of discussion.

You must document the premise you are making before we can reasonably discuss it.

You have state that every DENOMINATION (not 5 people, but every denomination) before 1930 OFFICIALLY (a word you stressed with embolden font) CONDEMNED AS IMMORAL (a specific statement) all forms of contraception. Then, after 1930, they “REVERSED” it, they made as “180 degree change.”

So far, you have not shown that EVEN ONE denomination “reversed” a position condemning all forms of contraceptives as immoral.

You premise appears to be baseless. How can we possibly have an intelligent or constructive discussion of it?

.

 

[JonNC]

Kay Cee and A.J.
Perhaps this might help. The LCMS has no official position on voluntary contraception.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2122

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Kay Cee and A.J.
Perhaps this might help. The LCMS has no official position on voluntary contraception.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2122

Jon

Jon, it NEVER has.

And yet, read the opening post.

It would appear that the entire premise of this thread is baseless. So far, our friend has been unable to give EVEN ONE example, much less to support the very broad, sweeping declaration of the premise.

.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, it NEVER has.

And yet, read the opening post.

It would appear that the entire premise of this thread is baseless. So far, our friend has been unable to give EVEN ONE example, much less to support the very broad, sweeping declaration of the premise.

Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that some denominations have not changed their doctrines on this issue, but instead there has been “doctrinal development” over the years.

Jon

 

[rev_kevin]

My understanding is that before 1930, every Christian denomination, without exception, condemned contraception as immoral. Luther called it “far more atrocious than incest and adultery.” Calvin called it “monstrous.”

Here is a link to those and other quotes made by Protestants: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp

However, today many Protestant denominations allow contraception.

My question is twofold:

1. What is the justification (if any) for this 180 degree reversal of teaching?
2. If there is such justification, where can I find support for this in the Bible?

Please note what this thread is **not **about:

It is not about any doctrine other than contraception.

It is not about the Catholic Church’s stand on contraception and whether or not Catholics follow it. I’m interested only in what the official teaching is here, not whether members of any Christian faith, Catholic or Protestant, follow those teachings.

It is not about whether or not contraception is a good thing. It is about whether or not justification can be found for a reversal of teaching about contraception.

Please restrict your discussion to answering my two questions. Anything else will be considered off topic, and I may ask the moderators to remove such posts as per the forum rules. Let’s have a nice, civil discussion. I’ve often wondered about these questions, so I’d like to see plenty of response.

The Bible makes no mention of contraception
Some may point to Genesis 1:28 which says “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”
Now to put this in context, Adam and Eve were the only 2 people on earth and God wanted them to fill the earth. I don’t think that this means that we should not use any type of contraception today.

As far as the 180 degree turn. I really don’t know about that but that morality or immorality of contraception is man made because there is no mention of it in the Bible.

 

[Caramel]

Just as an aside a Papal Council voted 30-5 to relax its position on birth control in 1966, but the pope at the time thought the faithful could not handle that on top of Vatican II and rejected it (IMHO the second biggest mistake the church made in the 20th century). Later, Pope Paul I stated he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them.

I’m glad to know you are privy to the personal opinions of the Catholic Popes. I agree this is off-topic (according to the OP) but IMHO it is inappropriate to ascribe such important beliefs to people other than yourself without providing a source.

I find it a bit humorous that you assert that Pope Paul I stated that he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them. How do you know this? Do you have a source? Do you have a source for the Papal Council vote and do you understand what must occur to cause a change in Doctrine in the Catholic Church?

Can you provide documentation?

I guess it doesn’t matter if you can’t because I think this is off topic and the only reason I responded to your post is that I find it somewhat insulting.

 

[Caramel]

Jon, it NEVER has.

And yet, read the opening post.

It would appear that the entire premise of this thread is baseless. So far, our friend has been unable to give EVEN ONE example, much less to support the very broad, sweeping declaration of the premise.

I have been searching via google and haven’t been able to find an official source for the Lutheran Church. All I can find is websites to various churches that claim they are Lutheran. Is there a central source? Is there a website I can go to that gives the official teaching of the Lutheran Church and the teachings throughout history?

Or are the positions and teachings left up to the individual churches in each city and town??

 

[JonNC]

I have been searching via google and haven’t been able to find an official source for the Lutheran Church. All I can find is websites to various churches that claim they are Lutheran. Is there a central source? Is there a website I can go to that gives the official teaching of the Lutheran Church and the teachings throughout history?

Or are the positions and teachings left up to the individual churches in each city and town??

Try the various synods,
www.lcms.org (which I referenced earlier in the thread)
www.elca.org
www.wels.org

And you could try the Lutheran World Federation, the website of which I’m not sure.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Is there a website I can go to that gives the official teaching of the Lutheran Church?

The COMPLETE record of such is found here: www.bookofconcord.org

.

 

[Caramel]

The COMPLETE record of such is found here: www.bookofconcord.org

.

Thank you very much. I’m not Lutheran and it is difficult for me to find information about that faith. I appreciate your help!!

 

[Caramel]

Try the various synods,
www.lcms.org (which I referenced earlier in the thread)
www.elca.org
www.wels.org

And you could try the Lutheran World Federation, the website of which I’m not sure.

Jon

Thank you very much - I appreciate any help!!

 

[Lutheranteach]

I’m glad to know you are privy to the personal opinions of the Catholic Popes. I agree this is off-topic (according to the OP) but IMHO it is inappropriate to ascribe such important beliefs to people other than yourself without providing a source.

I find it a bit humorous that you assert that Pope Paul I stated that he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them. How do you know this? Do you have a source? Do you have a source for the Papal Council vote and do you understand what must occur to cause a change in Doctrine in the Catholic Church?

Can you provide documentation?

I guess it doesn’t matter if you can’t because I think this is off topic and the only reason I responded to your post is that I find it somewhat insulting.

In September 1978, Luciani was heard in the papal apartments talking to his Secretary of State,
“Cardinal” Villot: “I will be happy to talk to this United States delegation on the issue. To my
mind we cannot leave the situation as it currently stands.” The “issue” was world population.
The “situation” was Humanae Vitae.41
At the top of his list of priorities of reform and change was radically altering the Vatican’s
relationship with capitalism and alleviating what he believed was the suffering that had
stemmed directly from Humanae Vitae.42 [We want to make it clear that we are not suggesting
that Humanae Vitae was a good document. Not at all. Humanae Vitae taught that couples could
use “natural” birth control and have no children at all, as is covered in this book. The point is
that Humanae Vitae did denounce artificial contraception, and John Paul I was very opposed to it
for that reason.]
In May of 1978, Luciani had been invited to attend and speak at an international congress being
held in Milan on June 21-22. The main purpose of the congress was to celebrate the upcoming
anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Luciani had let it be known that he would not speak
at the congress and that he would not attend.43
On September 19, 1978, John Paul I had a meeting with his Secretary of State “Cardinal” Villot.
John Paul I stated:
“Eminence, we have been discussing birth control for about forty-five minutes. If the
information I have been given, the various statistics, if that information is accurate, then
during the period of time we have been talking, over one thousand children under the
age of five have died of malnutrition. During the next forty-five minutes while you and I
look forward with anticipation to our next meal, a further thousand children will die of
malnutrition. By this time tomorrow thirty thousand children who at this moment are
alive, will be dead – of malnutrition. God does not always provide.”44

David Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 192-196. If that makes you feel any better

 

[Kay_Cee]

You must document the premise you are making before we can reasonably discuss it.

You have state that every DENOMINATION (not 5 people, but every denomination) before 1930 OFFICIALLY (a word you stressed with embolden font) CONDEMNED AS IMMORAL (a specific statement) all forms of contraception. Then, after 1930, they “REVERSED” it, they made as “180 degree change.”

So far, you have not shown that EVEN ONE denomination “reversed” a position condemning all forms of contraceptives as immoral.

You premise appears to be baseless. How can we possibly have an intelligent or constructive discussion of it?

.

I said in my OP it was a reversal of ***teaching. ***I have already given documentation. You just refuse to accept it.

But here is more:

“We have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900s. Not one! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiatically opposed to it, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation.” Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control

If you take that statement and compare “many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation” and compare that to the allowance of contraception today, why you can’t see a difference is beyond me.

As I have already stated, I am defining “official” differently than you are, and I am allowed to use a dictionary definition. (It’s a *documented *defintion from Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary, which, by your own defintion, you should accept.)

Within this thread, we already have Luther’s statement condeming contraception, and ELCA’s very different positon (in post 6). Luther taught one thing. ELCA today teaches another. I’ve already been told by a poster that Luther was wrong. What am I to call that but a reversal of his teaching?

Besides, if you think the conversaton cannot continue, why you continue to converse is also beyond me.