C
Caramel
Guest
Yes I knew he was being sarcastic. lol - How could I miss that? I even read it that way when I read the post. I was just pointing out that your position appeared to be neutral.
- Status
C
Caramel
Guest
Andrew, I’m sorry if my reply to you was ambiguous. I know you were being sarcastic and I agree with you. I was just trying to point out the the OP’s position appeared to be neutral. I didn’t mean to come across as “sternly pointing out your error” or anything like that. In fact I laughed when I read your post. It’s a good post.[sarcasm]Gosh, Kay Cee! What’s wrong with you? Don’t you know that we’re in more enlightened days? Saying contraception is evil is barbaric and savage! Get with the times! Christianity has to evolve. Forget what St. Paul said about not conforming to the world. That’s outdated![/sarcasm]
Protestants who embrace it cannot answer as to why there is the 180 reversal in teaching. If I were Protestant still, that would immediately cause me to pause.
In Christ,
Andrew
I apologize for writing an ambiguous reply. You did a very good job of showing that what you said was said in a funny, sarcastic way.
I think I’ll leave now and go hide…
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Again you seem fixated on the date. And again I will say that the date is not important. What is important is the reversal on the issue of contraception. Did you even check out the link I gave in my OP? It shows Protestants in the past, including Luther and Calvin, condemning contraception. But now contraception is allowed by many Protestant churches.
I am asking for justification for the change. My premise is ***not based upon a particular date. My premise is based upon that fact that there has been a complete reversal on the issue. ***
So please stick to the topic and provide justification for the change, if you can.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Okay, that may be so, but just because there was a reason for the change doesn’t prove the change was justified.
H
Harpazo
Guest
No worries! I was sort of going off on my own tangent with that reply in conjunction with Kay Cee’s OP.Andrew, I’m sorry if my reply to you was ambiguous. I know you were being sarcastic and I agree with you. I was just trying to point out the the OP’s position appeared to be neutral. I didn’t mean to come across as “sternly pointing out your error” or anything like that. In fact I laughed when I read your post. It’s a good post.
I apologize for writing an ambiguous reply. You did a very good job of showing that what you said was said in a funny, sarcastic way.
I think I’ll leave now and go hide…
In Christ,
Andrew
P
paperwight
Guest
I also think we should be aware that until the 1830’s, the role of ovulation was not realised. Presmably this came about through better quality microscopes.
In other words, the man was seen as planting the seed, which grew in the womb as a seed grows in the ground. Sperm were considered to be potential babies, and even called humunculi ('little men) It was only in the 1830’s that scientists learnt why not every sexual act led to conception
Hence the horror caused by spilling the seed. It was seen as murder, and any act which prevented the seed ending up in the womb to take root was also murder. It was not realised that many millions of sperm are involved in each sexual act, and that clearly, not all of them were intended to grow into a baby.
If Luther did indeed say such an extraordinary thing, we must relate it to the scientific knowledge of the time.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Well this is a tough one because many protestant denominations are silent on the issue (by choice). They want to leave the matter to the individual church or individual member.
But with that said, here are a few that I have heard:
Southern Baptist Convention says, “The Southern Baptist Convention is not opposed to the use of birth control within marriage as long as the methods used do not cause the fertilized egg to abort and as long as the methods used do not bar having children altogether unless there’s a medical reason the couple should not have children.”
Methodists say, “The United Methodist Church, holds that “each couple has the right and the duty prayerfully and responsibly to control conception according to their circumstances.” Its Resolution on Responsible Parenthood states that in order to “support the sacred dimensions of personhood, all possible efforts should be made by parents and the community to ensure that each child enters the world with a healthy body, and is born into an environment conducive to realization of his or her potential.” To this end, the United Methodist Church supports "adequate public funding and increased participation in family planning services by public and private agencies.”
Presbyterians say, "The Presbyterian Church (USA) supports “full and equal access to contraceptive methods.” In a recent resolution endorsing insurance coverage for contraceptives, the church affirmed that “contraceptive services are part of basic health care” and cautioned that “unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, and maternal morbidity, and threaten the economic viability of families.”
Question 2
I have seen Luke 4:18 as one scripture (but personally I find it to be a stretch).
I’ve also heard that the parable of the Talents is used. (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27)
C
crazzeto
Guest
Any thoughts regarding Gen 38? To use any NT passage to try and support contraception, really feels like you’re trying to read something into scripture. Gen 38 however, is pretty straight forward.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Are we discussing the spilling of seed here? I am pretty sure the sin was not the spilling of the seed as much as it was his refusal to advance his brother’s family because he had the desire of gaining his brother’s inheritance.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Thank you for the response. This is a bit more like what I have been asking for, although I’m not seeing how stating the positions of various churches shows justification for the reversal.
As for Luke 4:18, my Bible reads that as: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.”
Is that the verse you mean? Because if it is, I honestly don’t see how it relates.
I’m not seeing how the parable of the talents relates either, since its message seems to be to *multiply *what God has given us, not to *cease from multiplying. *(clarification: I’m not referring to *multiplying *here necessarily to mean procreation. One could also multiply love by bringing children to love into the world. I would think Jesus meant for us to multiply all the gifts God bestows upon us.)
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how these verses relate because I’m honestly not seeing it. Thank you!
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
All the Protestants quoted in the link I supplied in the OP refer to Genesis 38. Onan wasted his seed upon the ground, and it offended the Lord. But surely God knew how babies are conceived, so He couldn’t have been laboring under a misperception. Therefore, such a misperception could not have been His motivation for being offended by Onan’s action. So I don’t see how a scientific breakthrough in our understanding of conception could justify the change that allowed contraception, since God, who had no misperception to be corrected, was still offended.
1
1ke
Guest
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
This is a protestant magazine, and a protestant author, and he analyzes the very question you are posing-- what precipitated the reversal. In his opinion, it was a moral failure of married clergy.
This is a protestant magazine, and a protestant author, and he analyzes the very question you are posing-- what precipitated the reversal. In his opinion, it was a moral failure of married clergy.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Thanks so much for the link. Since I am a bit short of time right now, I skimmed the article. Your assessment of the article seems right.
I would hate to think, however, that a change in doctrine occurred because of moral failure. If something is seen as a sin but then doctrine is changed to allow and even promote that sin, what does that say? I’m hoping there’s a far better reason for the change.
1
1ke
Guest
Personally, I think he is spot on.
We see this over and over again. People who want to do what is deemed a sin simply redefine things so that what they want to do is not a sin. We see it with contraception, abortion, homosexual sex, cohabitation, divorce/remarriage, and on and on. How many “Christian” denominations have suddenly found some doctrinal or ‘pastoral’ reason to change their teaching on all of the above. Contraception was the crack in the damn, the root from which all the others spring forth. All the other sexual sins were waiting behind it to come flooding out when the damn burst.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
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.
.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
Wrong, without a doubt.
P
Publisher
Guest
The Society of Friends has never made an “official” declaration concerning contraception…Friends believe that this is between each believer and God…no one has the right to impose their beliefs concerning contracteption upon another.
More to the point however is that Friends are not willing to give up their God given counsel look to a body of other believers to determine what is right or wrong for them.
Friends look to Christ and his Light and their conscience as led by this Light Within, they do use the Meeting as a “sounding board” to assist in making decisions…but Friends do not look to a book or a “magisterium” or the Yearly Meeting to “decide” for them how to conduct their lives and their marriages.
For Friends, each one is responsible to God and God alone to be Guide and Teacher.
More to the point however is that Friends are not willing to give up their God given counsel look to a body of other believers to determine what is right or wrong for them.
Friends look to Christ and his Light and their conscience as led by this Light Within, they do use the Meeting as a “sounding board” to assist in making decisions…but Friends do not look to a book or a “magisterium” or the Yearly Meeting to “decide” for them how to conduct their lives and their marriages.
For Friends, each one is responsible to God and God alone to be Guide and Teacher.
M
manualman
Guest
The OP question has some inherent problems. Many (most?) protestant groups don’t HAVE a lot of “official positions” on moral matters. I’m pretty sure you won’t find an official Baptist position statement that says that murder is wrong either. They know it’s wrong because Scripture and our understanding of scripture has always clearly shown that.
Perhaps the question would be better phrased “Is there any evidence that any significant protestant group endorsed the use of contraception prior to the Anglican Lambeth statement in the early 1900’s?” As far as I know, that is the FIRST formal rationalization by a major christian sect of contraception.
Now the 'why" question. To me it is simple. The protestant reformers NEEDED to find something other than apostolic succession to hang infallible authority on. They couldn’t accept that something so clearly riven with sinful corruption as the catholic church could still be THE church spoken of by Scripture. (In a way, they despaired that Jesus could deal with all his Judas apostles.) Scripture was really the only other candidate they could come up with. But these ‘reformers’ weren’t REALLY entirely formed by scripture alone. They believed a lot that catholicism believes. The law of unintended consequences took over later and each successive generation of protestant has discarded more and more of what their judgement concluded was human invention, rather than scripturally inspired. (the relatively recent protestant deformations on matters of divorce and gay marriage are just the latest examples of a long process of doctrinal discard, even though it is EASY to see how these fly in the face of scripture!)
Thus, the harmfullness of contraception was ignored for the same reasons that many protestants discarded the sacraments like Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, etc. Luther and Calvin had NO idea what kind of snowball they started rolling downhill and what it would become. I know you didn’t want to open other cans of worms, but too bad! They are really just different worms in the SAME jar…
Perhaps the question would be better phrased “Is there any evidence that any significant protestant group endorsed the use of contraception prior to the Anglican Lambeth statement in the early 1900’s?” As far as I know, that is the FIRST formal rationalization by a major christian sect of contraception.
Now the 'why" question. To me it is simple. The protestant reformers NEEDED to find something other than apostolic succession to hang infallible authority on. They couldn’t accept that something so clearly riven with sinful corruption as the catholic church could still be THE church spoken of by Scripture. (In a way, they despaired that Jesus could deal with all his Judas apostles.) Scripture was really the only other candidate they could come up with. But these ‘reformers’ weren’t REALLY entirely formed by scripture alone. They believed a lot that catholicism believes. The law of unintended consequences took over later and each successive generation of protestant has discarded more and more of what their judgement concluded was human invention, rather than scripturally inspired. (the relatively recent protestant deformations on matters of divorce and gay marriage are just the latest examples of a long process of doctrinal discard, even though it is EASY to see how these fly in the face of scripture!)
Thus, the harmfullness of contraception was ignored for the same reasons that many protestants discarded the sacraments like Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, etc. Luther and Calvin had NO idea what kind of snowball they started rolling downhill and what it would become. I know you didn’t want to open other cans of worms, but too bad! They are really just different worms in the SAME jar…
P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
That is the understanding I have of this passage of scripture. It seems that the sin was greed, not the spilling of seed.
A
ahollars
Guest
The problem with that theory is that greed would still have been the sin if Onan simply refused to perform his duty. The inheritance would still have been passed to him, because there would be no son. The greater offense was in taking his brother’s widow, only to deceive her by willfully not giving her a child.
Yes, his sin was greed, but if you think lust was not also a factor, then you’re simply ignoring things that don’t fit your own view.
- Status