Protestants and Contraception

[manualman]

Actually, this is not surprising. AmericanJosiah has utterly no interest in the opinions of the leadership of 400 years of protestantdom and it doesn’t bother him that nobody has ever produced a quote from a reputable protestant theologian prior to 1900 that endorses contraception.

That’s actually internally consistent with the ethic of “Sola Scriptura,” since those would merely be “opinions of men” with no real authority. But it ought to trouble a thinking man.

 

[mark_a]

Another snippet:

The same stress line emerged in America. For example, in the very conservative Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, the average pastor in 1890 had 6.5 children. The number fell to 3.7 children in 1920, 42 percent below the 1890 number. Other churches saw a similar decline. Here, too, the Protestant clergy had ceased to be models of a fruitful home for their congregations and the broader culture.

During the 1930s, the Missouri Synod quietly dropped its campaign against the Birth Control League of America. In the 1940s, one of the church’s leading theologians, Albert Rehwinkel, concluded that Luther had simply been wrong. God’s words in Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”—were not a command; they were merely a blessing, and an optional one at that.

Maybe this is not Lutheran dogma , but they seemed pretty serious about it back then.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You really do seem to have an interest in taking the Lambeth conference of 1930 and the decision (which was indeed a reversal of previous doctrinal teaching on contraception) and making it into ‘just’ one group’s opinion.

Why is that?

IF it can be shown that The Anglican Church had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as “immoral” prior to 1930 and totally reversed, “did a 180” in its position after that, then we we ONE case. Read the opening post. Read the subject of this thread. It’s not that ONE denomination had a position and ONE denomination changed it.

You still have not shown us in any way that other Christian groups taught that contraception was not a moral evil.

That’s right. The premise of this thread has not been substantiated. A claim was copy/pasted without any regard whatsoever for whether it is true - it seems assumed that if something is stated on the internet, it MUST be a dogmatic fact beyond dispute or need for investigation. Why is that?

Where (prior to 1930) are the protestant groups who taught that contraception was not a moral evil?

You perhaps did not read the opening post. The premise of this thread is NOT that there were no denominations prior to 1930 that taught that all forms of contraception are NOT immoral, it’s that they all DID teach that. So far, we have a claim that ONE did (but that’s not been established). IF you are of the opinion that the only denomination in existence before 1930 was the Anglican Church and if you can document that it reversed its position - then I see your point.

if Protestant groups had absolutely ‘no’ teaching on contraception, why is it that in those cases (documented examples that go way back, records of the Puritans, records of individual churches which operated under the ‘umbrella’ of the ‘leadership’ etc., we constantly find examples where pastors would write, or preach (oral teaching is still teaching you know) that contraception was wrong, and we don’t find (or if we find it, we find it REPUDIATED by the majority or leaders) examples of those in authority in Protestant churches teaching that contraception is permissable?

Because you seem to be confusing the individual opinions of 6 individuals with the official positions of “every denomination” in history. Apples and oranges. I’m sure you could find more than 6 people before 1930 who believed the world is flat, that hardly means that every denomination in history before then had an official position that the world is flat. You will find Catholics who believe that contraception is just fine, does that mean THAT is the official position of The Catholic Church? I know a Catholic who firmly believes there is intelligent life, even technological life in our universal - likely in our galaxy; does that mean that’s the official position of The Catholic Church or does it just mean that’s the position of THAT Catholic individual? Now, IF you are willing to say that if an individual in a denomination has a position ERGO that’s an official position of the denomination, then okay - but then I’m going to quote some Catholics I know that think contraception is just fine and apply your rubric.

Read the opening post. The premise here is NOT that there were individuals prior to 1930 who believed that all forms of contraception were morally wrong, it’s that every denomination officially proclaimed that as its position. Apples and oranges.

Again, my denomination has NEVER had an official position on this. It didn’t have one prior to 1930, it doesn’t have one now, it didn’t change or reverse any position on this because it never had one and still doesn’t. That does not mean that all members of my denomination since its founding in 1847 have never had any opinions about this - perhaps even passionate ones - but that’s MOOT to the issue of this thread. The FACT is, the denomination never has and still doesn’t have a position and NEVER changed or reversed it. I don’t doubt that at least one member of the denomination hasn’t changed their view on this, but this thread isn’t about individuals and it’s not about opinions, it’s about official denominational positions.

The premise is that ALL DENOMINATIONS - every one of them (not just The Anglican Church) had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as immoral before 1930. We have been supplied with NOTHING to substantiate that this has any truth to it at all. It’s baseless. It is (sadly) one of those baseless misstatements made at a lot of internet sites (it would seem by Catholics) - and just perpetuated - over and over - without any concern whatsoever for whether its true or not.

.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You really do seem to have an interest in taking the Lambeth conference of 1930 and the decision (which was indeed a reversal of previous doctrinal teaching on contraception) and making it into ‘just’ one group’s opinion.

Why is that?

You still have not shown us in any way that other Christian groups taught that contraception was not a moral evil.

Why is that?

You should be able to do that with ease. Where (prior to 1930) are the protestant groups who taught that contraception was not a moral evil? And you know, by ‘taught’ we do not artificially attempt (as you have) to limit this to a ‘written’ statement. Contraception has been known and sadly practiced for many, many generations prior to ours. . .now, if Protestant groups had absolutely ‘no’ teaching on contraception, why is it that in those cases (documented examples that go way back, records of the Puritans, records of individual churches which operated under the ‘umbrella’ of the ‘leadership’ etc., we constantly find examples where pastors would write, or preach (oral teaching is still teaching you know) that contraception was wrong, and we don’t find (or if we find it, we find it REPUDIATED by the majority or leaders) examples of those in authority in Protestant churches teaching that contraception is permissable?

Fact is, whether you’re in Puritan New England, 1830s "Dickens’ London, 1880s’ Paris, 1890s’ Vienna, or 1920s’ ‘down South U.S.A.’, when you hear from the various preachers of both Protestant and Catholic churches speaking on the topic of contraception, they refer to it as morally wrong. It is only in the 1920s that the ‘furor’ begins with the emphasis skewed and the attempts to paint the issue as ‘woman’s rights’ and the politicization begin, and it is the Lambeth Conferences’ kowtowing to that ‘revisionism’ of the subject that causes and has caused a host (but not ALL) of Christians to ‘change their minds’ about contraception.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Actually, this is not surprising. AmericanJosiah has utterly no interest in the opinions of the leadership of 400 years of protestantdom

This thread isn’t about the opinions of individuals - Catholic or Protestant - before or after 1930.

IF you want to close this thread and begin a new one on the personal opinions of the 2.2 billion Christians around the world - both Catholic and Protestant - concerning whether all forms of contraception are “immoral” - that’s fine. We can bring up some polls done on such matters among Catholics and some Protestant groups. But that’s not the issue of this thread.

What “troubles” me is when Catholics RIGHTLY repudiate statements made about The Catholic Church perpetuated thoughtlessly (copy and paste of things found on the internet for example) without any concern for whether they are TRUE - but then copy and paste things they find on the internet, perpetuate it endlessly for years and years, and reveal they have zero concern for whether the statement is true or not.

IF one is going to make the statement that “EVERY denomination before 1930 had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as immoral” - then it is up to the one making that statement to support it as correct. The complete unconcern for whether its true or not is a concern. Then, to state “and they REVERSED this, doing a complete 180 degree change” requires the substantiation that they then repudiated their earlier position and took the opposite one - in each of those cases. Otherwise, this is the perpetuation of baseless gossip - and we all know what The Catholic Catechism says about that. Truth SHOULD matter for Christians, especially as we speak of each other (I would hope).

Now, again, if one wants to close this thread about denominations and their official positions, and INSTEAD open a new thread about the opinions of individuals - that’s a whole other issue. I suspect LOTS of individuals have had opinions about this - both Catholic and Protestant, both before and after 1930. But that’s a whole other topic for another day and thread. Again, if I quoted a Catholic who says that all forms of contraception are just fine - you would not permit me to say ERGO that’s the position of The Catholic Church. So why, then, defend and use the exact rubric you decry as wrong?
And it makes no difference if it’s Luther or Calvin, since the personal opinions of even your POPE are just that - personal opinions, not the dogma of The Catholic Church. The Pope may think Bratwurst is wonderful, that doesn’t mean that it is dogma in The Catholic Church that bratwurst is wonderful. Again, apply the same rubric you insist people apply to The Catholic Church rather than this opposite rubric.

.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You really do seem to have an interest in taking the Lambeth conference of 1930 and the decision (which was indeed a reversal of previous doctrinal teaching on contraception) and making it into ‘just’ one group’s opinion.

Why is that?

You still have not shown us in any way that other Christian groups taught that contraception was not a moral evil.

Why is that?

You should be able to do that with ease. Where (prior to 1930) are the protestant groups who taught that contraception was not a moral evil? And you know, by ‘taught’ we do not artificially attempt (as you have) to limit this to a ‘written’ statement. Contraception has been known and sadly practiced for many, many generations prior to ours. . .now, if Protestant groups had absolutely ‘no’ teaching on contraception, why is it that in those cases (documented examples that go way back, records of the Puritans, records of individual churches which operated under the ‘umbrella’ of the ‘leadership’ etc., we constantly find examples where pastors would write, or preach (oral teaching is still teaching you know) that contraception was wrong, and we don’t find (or if we find it, we find it REPUDIATED by the majority or leaders) examples of those in authority in Protestant churches teaching that contraception is permissable?

Fact is, whether you’re in Puritan New England, 1830s "Dickens’ London, 1880s’ Paris, 1890s’ Vienna, or 1920s’ ‘down South U.S.A.’, when you hear from the various preachers of both Protestant and Catholic churches speaking on the topic of contraception, they refer to it as morally wrong. It is only in the 1920s that the ‘furor’ begins with the emphasis skewed and the attempts to paint the issue as ‘woman’s rights’ and the politicization begin, and it is the Lambeth Conferences’ kowtowing to that ‘revisionism’ of the subject that causes and has caused a host (but not ALL) of Christians to ‘change their minds’ about contraception.

What seems to be missing in all this is the fact that effective “artificial contraception” eventuated with the Contraceptive Pill in the 1960’s. Until then, most methods of “artificial contraception” were ineffective. So prior to that time it was hardly an issue, despite the existence of various types of artificial contraception.

In addition by 1960, world population had reached 3 billion, which has since more than doubled. By 2040 it is expected to double again. In the West, life expectancy has risen from around 45 in Bismarck’s Germany to around 80 today, with greatly reduced infant mortality toll. This by the way has been done by using artificial medical methods.

At the same time, as the ones who bear families, but who are also entitled to the same opportunities as the male, the females may have wanted more say in running their own families and households.

Since Protestants are not hidebound by an “infallible magisterium”, they are free to define the limits of their own ethics. They generally search Scripture for guidelines.

Secondly their pastors are usually married and they know better than any Catholic priest, bishop or Pope what’s involved in raising a family, particularly if you’re on a low income. My own favourite old Protestant pastor raised six sons, and lived for years below the poverty line. In his own words, “I nearly starved”.

A hundred years ago, the average home was probably four walls and a few rooms, with the essentials. That’s not the case today. I started to write a bit of an article about a pipe dream of mine, a “tax on machines”, and as part of that I went through my own home and counted the “machines”. If I included lights, we had over a hundred, and we’ve got quite an average home. These all consume energy in one form or another, and mostly non-renewable fossil energy at that.

I did a quick estimate of the same situation a hundred years ago, and I think I estimated there might have been five machines. Lights were probably hurrican lanterns or candles, meat was probably in a meat safe to keep the flies out, the washing was probably done in a copper over a wood fired base, and cooking was also probably wood or coal based. Most people walked just about everywhere.

So, not only is there the pressure of a burgeoning population, there is also the hugely increased demand for energy, water, food, resources, and at the same time the control of environmental stresses.

So as far as I’m concerned, the contraceptive pill was God’s idea, given largely through Catholic researchers, and only narrowly averted being accepted by Pope Paul XI. He was greatly affected by the outcome eg. …

“In Pope Paul VI was troubled by the Encyclical’s reception in the West. In March 1969, he had a meeting with one of the main critics of Humanae Vitae, Leo Cardinal Joseph Suenens. Paul heard him out and said merely, “Yes, pray for me; because of my weaknesses, the Church is badly governed,”[39]”

But if you’re going to go into Protestant development, you’d need to do an exhaustive search of individual denominational documentation, and even then you’d find it’s an issue that hardly had any real bearing, until the advent of artificial contraception aka. “The Pill”, and that wasn’t till the 1960’s. Humanae Vitae wasn’t written until 1968, and was probably even the Catholic Church’s first serious attempt to deal with the topic in any great depth.

 

[fish90]

You expressed mostly opinion and some facts people already know (The Pill). The only thing you said that added to the discussion was that Protestants freely choose their beliefs because of the lack of an infallible Magisterium. Please realize that since you are a Catholic and must accept but not understand (you still have an obligation to do so) doctrines of the Church.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You expressed mostly opinion and some facts people already know (The Pill). The only thing you said that added to the discussion was that Protestants freely choose their beliefs because of the lack of an infallible Magisterium. Please realize that since you are a Catholic and must accept but not understand (you still have an obligation to do so) doctrines of the Church.

My personal stance is that I believe the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth. I don’t trust the “infallibility” doctrine as I believe it’s unnecessary, and I think the Church is just plain wrong about the contraceptive pill.

I accept the “Immaculate Conception” (mainly because Mary affirmed it at Lourdes, with miracles to boot), but I also maintain the right to think for myself, whether you like it or not. I accept the Pope wears the shoes of Peter the Fisherman, who was the same bloke who denied Christ three times, and at one time had to be rebuked by Christ with “Get thee behind me, Satan”, and pulled back into line by Paul over the circumcision issue.

After all if the Magisterium is so infallible, why did they pick Pope John Paul I who lasted only thirty days in office? The deliberated for weeks, they were guided by the Holy Spirit in their choice, and yet the bloke they picked keeled over in just a month.

Explain that one to me in terms of “Infallibility” and God’s presumably intense interest in who they chose to be the CEO of HIS church.

 

[fish90]

My personal stance is that I believe the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth. I don’t trust the “infallibility” doctrine as I believe it’s unnecessary, and I think the Church is just plain wrong about the contraceptive pill.

I accept the “Immaculate Conception” (mainly because Mary affirmed it at Lourdes, with miracles to boot), but I also maintain the right to think for myself, whether you like it or not. I accept the Pope wears the shoes of Peter the Fisherman, who was the same bloke who denied Christ three times, and at one time had to be rebuked by Christ with “Get thee behind me, Satan”, and pulled back into line by Paul over the circumcision issue.

After all if the Magisterium is so infallible, why did they pick Pope John Paul I who lasted only thirty days in office? The deliberated for weeks, they were guided by the Holy Spirit in their choice, and yet the bloke they picked keeled over in just a month.

Explain that one to me in terms of “Infallibility” and God’s presumably intense interest in who they chose to be the CEO of HIS church.

Please understand that I did not mean to insult you. If I did, I apologize. My concern was with your stance on Church doctrine. You still must accept not understand the doctrine of Papal infallibility and the doctrine that contraception is wrong. Hey, Christ’s Church teaches some tough stuff and I do understand.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Please understand that I did not mean to insult you. If I did, I apologize. My concern was with your stance on Church doctrine. You still must accept not understand the doctrine of Papal infallibility and the doctrine that contraception is wrong. Hey, Christ’s Church teaches some tough stuff and I do understand.

Well, with all due respect, you didn’t answer my question re. Pope John Paul I.

If you believe the church is infallible, guided by an infallible Holy Spirit, and that the office of Pope is the most important office in Christendom, then why did he kick the bucket after a mere 30 days in office?

I’ve got my own explanation as I’ve pointed out to one of the other members of this discussion, and my reasons are quite logical.

Either -

a. God doesn’t care who takes on the office, which means that the church could hardly lay claim to infallible guidance or …

b. The magisterium made the wrong choice, and if they can’t even pick the right pope, then why should we trust them for any other decisions, or …

c. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God didn’t know the man was sick, which wouldn’ say much for His omnipotence, or …

d. He was murdered, but exhaustive investigations failed to find any trace of suspicious behaviour, despite the conspiracy theorists of the time, rumours about the Vatican Bank etc. so that’s almost certainly out or …

He was killed by God for blatant disobedience in relation to a particular task he was given to do. Now I wonder what that might have been.

Anyone who tries to defend Magisterial infallibility and Divine omnipotence, and then in the next breath concludes that between them they couldn’t even pick a suitable Pope who didn’t live for more than 30 days after selection is in my opinion trying to justify an unjustafiable conclusion.

 

[fish90]

Completely off-topic.

People die; that’s one of two two things I can promise you, that and you will be paying taxes.

The cardinals try the best they can and immoral Popes are elected. A Pope’s infallibility does not exist during the election process, but when the man decides to teach as Pope. The important thing to consider not one bad Pope or any other Pope has infallibly taught heresy.

Vatican I’s teaching on this is true and biblical. I hope you start researching this and pray for the grace to understand this.

Good Luck.

 

[Kay_Cee]

A potential justification for an allowance of contraception may stem from these verses:

Matthew 12:
30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:
8: Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Perhaps an/the interpretation is that neither the prevention of conception, nor the termination of developing life, fall into the category of unforgivable sin; and the main focus of the church(es) may be to praise the honoring of the Son rather than to condemn [forgivable] sin.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Is it that sins which may be forgiven are allowed? I hope that’s not the case.

 

[Kay_Cee]

And please, let’s keep the discussion on topic. This thread is not about Catholicism or the infallibility of the pope. If you wish to discuss those topics, please do open a new thread.

Let’s everybody play nice and have a good discussion.

 

[ahollars]

Well, with all due respect, you didn’t answer my question re. Pope John Paul I.

If you believe the church is infallible, guided by an infallible Holy Spirit, and that the office of Pope is the most important office in Christendom, then why did he kick the bucket after a mere 30 days in office?

I’ve got my own explanation as I’ve pointed out to one of the other members of this discussion, and my reasons are quite logical.

Either -

a. God doesn’t care who takes on the office, which means that the church could hardly lay claim to infallible guidance or …

b. The magisterium made the wrong choice, and if they can’t even pick the right pope, then why should we trust them for any other decisions, or …

c. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God didn’t know the man was sick, which wouldn’ say much for His omnipotence, or …

d. He was murdered, but exhaustive investigations failed to find any trace of suspicious behaviour, despite the conspiracy theorists of the time, rumours about the Vatican Bank etc. so that’s almost certainly out or …

He was killed by God for blatant disobedience in relation to a particular task he was given to do. Now I wonder what that might have been.

Anyone who tries to defend Magisterial infallibility and Divine omnipotence, and then in the next breath concludes that between them they couldn’t even pick a suitable Pope who didn’t live for more than 30 days after selection is in my opinion trying to justify an unjustafiable conclusion.

Are you serious?! :ehh:

From wikipedia:

“Infallibility does not refer to the inability to sin (impeccability), or to the personal holiness of a person, although it is occasionally misunderstood in that sense.”

Infallibility has nothing to due with health. Apples and oranges.

John Paul I was not the only Pope to serve less than a year. His reign was short because God was telling the Cardinals something important. Thus they elected JPII, the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. I’d say that worked out the way it was supposed to.

Go back and study your history before you jump to any more conclusions.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

A potential justification for an allowance of contraception may stem from these verses:

Matthew 12:
30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:
8: Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Perhaps an/the interpretation is that neither the prevention of conception, nor the termination of developing life, fall into the category of unforgivable sin; and the main focus of the church(es) may be to praise the honoring of the Son rather than to condemn [forgivable] sin.

Matthew 13:
44: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
46: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

**In reflecting on these parables I feel that they also may be relevant to the topic of this thread.

Perhaps an interpretation is that sins such as sexual immorality, contraception and/or abortion, etc. are like the things that must be sold to buy the treasure or pearl. That is to say that when someone believes in Christ that there sins are forgiven so that their soul is redeemed for an eternity. The soul is the treasure, the pearl of great price; and the means to get the wealth to afford it is the the forgiveness of sin(s).**

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Are you serious?! :ehh:

From wikipedia:

“Infallibility does not refer to the inability to sin (impeccability), or to the personal holiness of a person, although it is occasionally misunderstood in that sense.”

Infallibility has nothing to due with health. Apples and oranges.

John Paul I was not the only Pope to serve less than a year. His reign was short because God was telling the Cardinals something important. Thus they elected JPII, the first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. I’d say that worked out the way it was supposed to.

Go back and study your history before you jump to any more conclusions.

Then you admit God is so unconcerned as to who leads His Church He doesn’t guide the Cardinals when they make their choice? Or if He does guide them, His guidance is so inept that the bloke kicks the bucket within a month?

Get real.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Matthew 13:
44: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
46: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

In reflecting on these parables I feel that they also may be relevant to the topic of this thread.

**Perhaps an interpretation is that sins such as sexual immorality, contraception and/or abortion, etc. are like the things that must be sold to buy the treasure or pearl. **That is to say that when someone believes in Christ that there sins are forgiven so that their soul is redeemed for an eternity. The soul is the treasure, the pearl of great price; and the means to get the wealth to afford it is the the forgiveness of sin(s).

Hmmmm. I can’t see that interpretation at all. That would make sin the price of salvation.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Hmmmm. I can’t see that interpretation at all. That would make sin the price of salvation.

**Perhaps the interpretation is better explained this way:

Sins are forgiven to preserve the souls of sinners as possessions are sold to purchase the field/treasure/pearl.

In yet another parable, sin is likened unto a debt owed.**

Matthew 18:
21: Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22: Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23: Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24: And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25: But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26: The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27: Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28: But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29: And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30: And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31: So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32: Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34: And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35: So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

And, in David’s confession of sin, he recognized that it was ultimately an offence, or debt, to God.

Psalm 51:
1: Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2: Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3: For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

**So it is that I have interpreted the aforementioned parables in the manner that I have.

I was not intending to say that sin is the price of salvation; but rather that the debt owed to God from the sins we accrue is forgiven to allow for the obtainment of mercy. And that, in our relations with others, we must cherish their souls – (as well as our own) – above any implied debt we feel, or believe, is owed to us or God.**

 

[Kay_Cee]

Perhaps the interpretation is better explained this way:

Sins are forgiven to preserve the souls of sinners as possessions are sold to purchase the field/treasure/pearl.

In yet another parable, sin is likened unto a debt owed.

Matthew 18:
21: Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22: Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23: Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24: And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25: But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26: The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27: Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28: But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29: And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30: And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31: So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32: Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34: And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35: So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

And, in David’s confession of sin, he recognized that it was ultimately an offence, or debt, to God.

Psalm 51:
1: Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2: Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3: For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

So it is that I have interpreted the aforementioned parables in the manner that I have.

I was not intending to say that sin is the price of salvation; but rather that the debt owed to God from the sins we accrue is forgiven to allow for the obtainment of mercy. And that, in our relations with others, we must cherish their souls – (as well as our own) – above any implied debt we feel, or believe, is owed to us or God.

Well, here’s the problem. In the parable of the pearl, the man sells what he already possesses, and he uses that money to buy the pearl. So it is the man, not God, getting rid of what he had (sin) and using the proceeds from that as his currency to buy the pearl. But in order for him to sell what he has (sin), it would have to have some value, wouldn’t it? So wouldn’t that be saying that sin has value?

Isn’t it a better interpretation that the man sees something more valuable than anything else, so he’s willing to get rid of everything that is a lesser good to obtain that one priceless good? For example, there’s nothing wrong with watching football on TV. It is in fact a good thing, something enjoyable. But it’s better to spend time praying or doing good works than watching football on TV, and a man who chooses the greater good is closer to the Kingdom than a man who doesn’t.

As for the parable in your quote above, isn’t that saying God will deal with us the way we deal with others?

I don’t see how either parable or the quote about King David relates to contraception, much less supports the use of it. I mean, do you honestly think contraception was what Jesus had in mind when he gave us those parables?

Could we please stick to discussing my OP? This is going off topic fast. Thanks!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Could we please stick to discussing my OP? This is going off topic fast. Thanks!

Yes, you need to yet document that EVERY denomination before 1930 officially had a position condemning all forms of contraception as “immoral” and after 1930, they “reversed” and did a “180” in that official denominational position.

So far, you have suggested that ONE denomination did this (well, one province of one denomination), I think you’re point is still baseless…

Your propensity to substitute individuals for denominations undermines your own position. I can quote lots of Catholics who believe that contraception is NOT immoral - and yet I have a hunch you’d insist that is moot vis-a-vis the official position of The Catholic Church - well, then, you need to apply the same rubric toward Protestant denominations. And your propensity to quote a individual as having a position as revealing a REVERSAL is simply silly. TAKING a position does not in ANY sense imply a reversal of an earlier position, a “180.”

**
Will you document your premise?**

.