Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScapularDude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rev_kevin said:
I use different Bibles, I use the King James, NIV, Life application study Bible new living translation, The complete Bible that has more books in it then the Catholic Bible.

The complete Bible version: 10) What he did was sos displeasing to the Lord that he killed him too.
Life application study Bible: 10) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child who would belong to his brother.

King James: 10) And the thing which he did displeased the Lord. wherefore he slew him also.
NIV: 10) But the Lord considered it evil for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother.
**Seems they are all saying the same thing. Onan was killed because he denied a child to his dead brother. **
Click to expand...
**

Well actually you are wrong and not being honest even with your comment. Based on the Bible Verses you cited.

**Complete Bible Version :**- killed for what HE DID
****King James : killed for the THING HE DID
NIV: **** You misrepresented this because what the NIV said is not what you wrote above that is why I highlighted it in red.

The NIV said: **What HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

I actually made a mistake by saying that I was quoting from King James when I was quoting from the NIV.

**So in all the above only the Life Application Bible said what you wanted it to say. But that Bible is a distorted Bible. It is not faithful to the Hebrew text.
**
 
benedictus2 said:
But Rev Kevin, that is just a re-hash of what you had already written before.

That does not explain WHY God killed Onan when His own prescription for dealing with not giving your brother a son is public shaming.

You wrote a long post that did not answer my question. Why?

**
Sorry but you are very wrong. The King James Bible is very clear. It said **"WHAT HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also"
No he was not.

Here it is again. "WHAT HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also"

I hope that your next post will finally answer that.

You have made so many posts in reply to my question and still you have failed to answer my question.
Click to expand...
Well no matter what I say and no matter what you say we both see it differently. What he did was wicked in the Lords sight. What did he do? He did not fulfill his obligaton. :doh2:
You have not given me anything new but the same thing over and over again. All questions like what faulty Bible are you using and junk like that.

I have given you why God killed Onan instead of public humiliation, but I won’t go into that because you don’t like me saying the same thing over and over again so I won’t.:bowdown:

Yes he was. Now we can go back and forth on this and get nowhere.

You don’t want to see the answer to your questions because its not the answer you are looking for. Its not the CC answer therefore it will never be the correct answer. 👍
 
Wow can I type in bold face, large fonts, capital letters and multiple colors in 50 different post over many days lest that he should give seed to his brother.
 
rev_kevin said:
Well no matter what I say and no matter what you say we both see it differently. What he did was wicked in the Lords sight. What did he do? He did not fulfill his obligaton. :doh2:
Click to expand...
Nope because even the Bibles that you quoted disagree with you so you are presenting evidence that go against your own reasoning.
You have not given me anything new but the same thing over and over again. All questions like what faulty Bible are you using and junk like that.
Click to expand...
You have not answered my questions. Still to date, no answer as to why God should change His mind about the kind of punishment if the sin was as you say it is.
I have given you why God killed Onan instead of public humiliation, but I won’t go into that because you don’t like me saying the same thing over and over again so I won’t.:bowdown:
Click to expand...
And as I have shown the Bible verses you gave actually went against you 🙂
Yes he was. Now we can go back and forth on this and get nowhere.
Click to expand...
You don’t want to see the answer to your questions because its not the answer you are looking for. Its not the CC answer therefore it will never be the correct answer. 👍
Click to expand...
There is a solution. You can start reading the word of God according to the Word of God regarding this matter.

You have the KJV, the NIV, the Complete Bible all stacked against the LIfe Application Bible which you used to argue your point. Three against 1. I think my argument holds 😃
 
benedictus2 said:
**

Well actually you are wrong and not being honest even with your comment. Based on the Bible Verses you cited.

**Complete Bible Version :- killed for what HE DID
King James : killed for the THING HE DID
NIV: ** Y**ou misrepresented this because what the NIV said is not what you wrote above that is why I highlighted it in red.

The NIV said: What HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

I actually made a mistake by saying that I was quoting from King James when I was quoting from the NIV.

**So in all the above only the Life Application Bible said what you wanted it to say. But that Bible is a distorted Bible. It is not faithful to the Hebrew text.
**
Click to expand...
What Bible do you use? Is it the Hebrew text? Really I don’t care.

Oh here’s the same thing being said by you, Its a distorted Bible, its a faulty Bible, its not faithful to the Hebrew text. And you say I keep repeating what I say. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Well if its all a distorted Bible and not the HEBREW TEXT then we have nothing to discuss any longer so I’ll say Have A Good Night. I’m really getting :yawn: of our discussion.
 
rev_kevin said:
What Bible do you use? Is it the Hebrew text? Really I don’t care.

Oh here’s the same thing being said by you, Its a distorted Bible, its a faulty Bible, its not faithful to the Hebrew text. And you say I keep repeating what I say. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Well if its all a distorted Bible and not the HEBREW TEXT then we have nothing to discuss any longer so I’ll say Have A Good Night. I’m really getting :yawn: of our discussion.
Click to expand...
Hey don’t blame me. You were the one who gave the three Bibles :rotfl:

Now that it’s come to bite you… 😃
 
rev_kevin said:
1 cor. 7:4-5 Spiritually our bodies belong to God when we become Christians because Jesus Christ bought us by paying the price to release us from sin. Physically our bodies belong to our spouses because God designed marriage so that , through the unino of husband and wife, the two become one. Paul stressed complete equality in sexual relationships. Sexual temptations are difficult to withstand because they appeal tothe normal desires that God has given us. Marriage provides God’s way to satisfy these natural sexual desires and to strengthen the partners against tempetation. Married couples have the responsibility to care for each other, therefore husbands and wives should not withhold themselves sexually from one another but should fulfill each other’s needss and desires.

Onan was killed because he did not fulfill his obligation by giving his dead brother a child and for not fulfilling his obligation to Tamar.
Click to expand...
The word “refuse”(is from the Greek (apostereo)) conveys a motive of connivance or jealousy in taking something from someone else. In verse 5, Paul commands the husband and wife not to “defraud” each other. In connection with verse 4, the defrauding refers to the time when one spouse deliberately refuses to give control of his/her body to the other spouse. Since Paul has warned against joining with a woman and becoming one flesh with her in 1Co 6:16; and since he advises each person to have his/her own spouse in order to avoid fornication in 7:2, this context indicates that the reference to giving power over one’s body to the other spouse in 7:4 refers to sexual union between husband and wife. When sexual union is shared by husband and wife, it is not the sin of fornication, since this union is within the marriage. For whatever reason, however, Paul intimates by the use of “refuse” that one partner deliberately refrains from coming together without the consent of the other. Moreover, “refusing” the spouse is sin, since Paul indicates in verse 6 that verse 5 is a “commandment.” Thus, “refusing” is also a sin because it is the result of jealous or conniving motives. Perhaps relations between husband and wife are strained or hostile and as a result one spouse begins to refrain from showing physical affection. Paul is opposed to such mentality. In verse 3, he commands that husband and wife render “conjugal rights” to each other. There is no excuse for strained relations. In order to express their love for each other, each spouse must recognize that he/she does not have “authority” over his/her own body. One spouse must submit freely and willingly to the other. And, of course, the privilege of sexual relations must not be abused by either spouse, since they must give “conjugal rights.”

Although not explicit in the context, one of the reasons husband and wife are to continue normal sexual relations is to produce children. This reason is implicit, for example, in verse 14. Here children are automatically assumed as a product of the husband wife relationship. This fact becomes especially significant since the children of verse 14 are the product of a mixed marriage. While a mixed marriage might be expected to have strained relations, nevertheless, children are expected from that union. Moreover, the children are given special sanctity because of the believing spouse. The believing spouse does not have to worry whether he/she could bring children into the world. There is no need to be afraid of bringing them up in the midst of an unbelieving parent. Thus, the believer in a mixed marriage should not engage in contraception due to any spiritual inadequacy in the home. The plural “children” reinforces that idea that a number of offspring are expected from that marriage.

If the principle of bringing children into the world is applied to a mixed marriage, surely it is even more applicable to a Christian marriage. As noted above, Paul’s emphasis is that the children are “sanctified” or “made holy” in the eyes of God. God has a special relationship with children born from a believing parent. This “sanctified” state regards the salvation of the children, first accomplished in Baptism, and continued afterward. Accordingly, in 1Co 7:16 Paul points out that salvation is an increased possibility for the unbelieving spouse. If it is increased for the unbelieving spouse, it is certainly increased for the children as the believer brings them up in the grace of God. Effectively, as the believer produces children, he/she is producing members for the kingdom of God. Since the emphasis is put on bringing children into the kingdom of God, then two believing spouses should especially have that task on the forefront of their minds. Their task is to produce children for the kingdom of God. God has given believing parents the responsibility and privilege of progressing His kingdom program in this most dramatic way. We are creators with Him in this wonderful program. Since it is God’s kingdom and we are not our own, the Christian has no right to prohibit reproduction. If they do, then they are thwarting God’s kingdom program for eternity.
 
Further, In 1Tm 5:13, Paul warns of certain characteristic behavior of young women as they begin to “cast off their first faith.” They are “idle,” “wandering from house to house,” “tattlers,” and “busybodies,” some having already “turned aside after Satan” (2 Tm 3:5-7). In order to inhibit these sinful tendencies, Paul directs that the younger women marry and bear children. In effect, Paul sets domestic and maternal life over against the idleness of single women who engage in worldly and fleshly activities. In Titus 2:5, Paul also stresses the domestic life for the woman, as he tells them “to love their children” and “be keepers at home…obedient to their own husbands.” Emphasis is put on the preservation of the family unit; the wife playing an indissoluble role in that process. Her role is amplified, since she is the only family member with the ability to bear children. This is why Paul, in 1 Tm 5:14, tells the women to bear children. She is responsible to God for that task (1 Tm 2:9-15). The refusal to bear children would be one form of “turning aside after Satan.”

God be with you.
 
Irish_Polock said:
The word “refuse”(is from the Greek (apostereo)) conveys a motive of connivance or jealousy in taking something from someone else. In verse 5, Paul commands the husband and wife not to “defraud” each other. In connection with verse 4, the defrauding refers to the time when one spouse deliberately refuses to give control of his/her body to the other spouse. Since Paul has warned against joining with a woman and becoming one flesh with her in 1Co 6:16; and since he advises each person to have his/her own spouse in order to avoid fornication in 7:2, this context indicates that the reference to giving power over one’s body to the other spouse in 7:4 refers to sexual union between husband and wife. When sexual union is shared by husband and wife, it is not the sin of fornication, since this union is within the marriage. For whatever reason, however, Paul intimates by the use of “refuse” that one partner deliberately refrains from coming together without the consent of the other. Moreover, “refusing” the spouse is sin, since Paul indicates in verse 6 that verse 5 is a “commandment.” Thus, “refusing” is also a sin because it is the result of jealous or conniving motives. Perhaps relations between husband and wife are strained or hostile and as a result one spouse begins to refrain from showing physical affection. Paul is opposed to such mentality. In verse 3, he commands that husband and wife render “conjugal rights” to each other. There is no excuse for strained relations. In order to express their love for each other, each spouse must recognize that he/she does not have “authority” over his/her own body. One spouse must submit freely and willingly to the other. And, of course, the privilege of sexual relations must not be abused by either spouse, since they must give “conjugal rights.”

Although not explicit in the context, one of the reasons husband and wife are to continue normal sexual relations is to produce children. This reason is implicit, for example, in verse 14. Here children are automatically assumed as a product of the husband wife relationship. This fact becomes especially significant since the children of verse 14 are the product of a mixed marriage. While a mixed marriage might be expected to have strained relations, nevertheless, children are expected from that union. Moreover, the children are given special sanctity because of the believing spouse. The believing spouse does not have to worry whether he/she could bring children into the world. There is no need to be afraid of bringing them up in the midst of an unbelieving parent. Thus, the believer in a mixed marriage should not engage in contraception due to any spiritual inadequacy in the home. The plural “children” reinforces that idea that a number of offspring are expected from that marriage.

If the principle of bringing children into the world is applied to a mixed marriage, surely it is even more applicable to a Christian marriage. As noted above, Paul’s emphasis is that the children are “sanctified” or “made holy” in the eyes of God. God has a special relationship with children born from a believing parent. This “sanctified” state regards the salvation of the children, first accomplished in Baptism, and continued afterward. Accordingly, in 1Co 7:16 Paul points out that salvation is an increased possibility for the unbelieving spouse. If it is increased for the unbelieving spouse, it is certainly increased for the children as the believer brings them up in the grace of God. Effectively, as the believer produces children, he/she is producing members for the kingdom of God. Since the emphasis is put on bringing children into the kingdom of God, then two believing spouses should especially have that task on the forefront of their minds. Their task is to produce children for the kingdom of God. God has given believing parents the responsibility and privilege of progressing His kingdom program in this most dramatic way. We are creators with Him in this wonderful program. Since it is God’s kingdom and we are not our own, the Christian has no right to prohibit reproduction. If they do, then they are thwarting God’s kingdom program for eternity.
Click to expand...
No no in verses 12-14 its because of their desire to serve Christ, some people in the Corinthian church throught they ought to divorce their pagan spouse and marry Christians. But Paul affirmed the marriage commitmint. Gods ideal is for husbands and wives to stay together, even when one spouse is not a believer. The Christian spouse should try to win the other to Christ. It would be easy to rationalize leaving, however Paul makes a strong case for staying with the unbelieving spouse and being a positive influence on the marriage. The blessings that flow to believers don’t stop there but extends to others. God regards the marriage as set apart for his use by the presence of one Christian spouse. The other does not recieve salvation automatically but is blessed by this relationship. The children of such a marriage have a godly influence and are set apart until they are old enough to make their own decision for Christ.
None of the above that you have given has anything to do with procreation. Procreation is not mentioned once in these verses.
 
Irish_Polock said:
Further, In 1Tm 5:13, Paul warns of certain characteristic behavior of young women as they begin to “cast off their first faith.” They are “idle,” “wandering from house to house,” “tattlers,” and “busybodies,” some having already “turned aside after Satan” (2 Tm 3:5-7). In order to inhibit these sinful tendencies, Paul directs that the younger women marry and bear children. In effect, Paul sets domestic and maternal life over against the idleness of single women who engage in worldly and fleshly activities. In Titus 2:5, Paul also stresses the domestic life for the woman, as he tells them “to love their children” and “be keepers at home…obedient to their own husbands.” Emphasis is put on the preservation of the family unit; the wife playing an indissoluble role in that process. Her role is amplified, since she is the only family member with the ability to bear children. This is why Paul, in 1 Tm 5:14, tells the women to bear children. She is responsible to God for that task (1 Tm 2:9-15). The refusal to bear children would be one form of “turning aside after Satan.”

God be with you.
Click to expand...
Sure it says to marry and have children but that don’t mean sex is just to procreate. It just common sense that if one marries they will at least have one child. Thats the dream of most women, to have a child. But to say sex is just to procreate and not for pleasure alone just don’t make sense. Sometimes you just want to be intiment with your spouse without the fear of having a child when you don’t want one right now. Sex with your spouse is showing your love for eachother, and to show your love intimentally don’t mean you have to have children or that a child should come out of that love. Sometimes you just want to please eachother. Just because you don’t want to take the chance of having children everytime you and your spouse are intiment with eachother don’t mean its a form of turning aside after Satan.God made sex for the pleasure of a husband and spouse and to have children but that don’t mean you have to take the chance every time you have relations with your spouse.

BTW I’m a German polock in the republic of Texas also.
 
rev_kevin said:
Nothing come to bite me, I’m just tired of you and your sarcasm.
Click to expand...
But they did come to bite you.

You gave three different Bibles to support your interpretation and all of them went against you and actually supported mine. 😃

There was one that did support you but that was a mistranslation because the original Hebrew text does not say it at all. Actually mistranslation is not the right word. That was an exegesis that they have written into the Bible which the original did not say at all.
 
Irish_Polock said:
Do you remember the story of Onan? It reads:

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. (Genesis (RSV) 38)
Click to expand...
Maybe because Onan actually felt bad that it was not his own wife? Quite sick if you ask me.

God was obviously mad that he had not done what he was told. What exactly does this have to do with contraception? You see it as because he dropped his ‘seed’. And I do too, but I think God was mad because he didn’t actually complete what he was told to do.

What on earth does this verse you posted have anything to do with contraception?
 
benedictus2 said:
Is there a commandment by God somewhere to have sex just for sex’s sake?
Click to expand...
You do realize many catholics have sex when the woman is not fertile so they won’t get pregnant?

That would be having sex for sex’s sake. Having sex when you know the chances of life coming to be are low.

I consider that birth control. Having sex when you know you cannot get pregnant is a way to just have fun and not have any consequences. There is nothing wrong with that if you’re married to the person.
 
I’m reposting this because there are some new comers to the thread and I STILL have not heard a halfway decent response to this. One person said the early Christians were obsessed with sex and another said they don’t care about the history of Christianity or protestantism. Neither of those are sufficient responses.

The Jews, early Christians, Protestant Reformers, and every Christian up to 1930 understood that contraception is a sin and they interpreted the Onan passage as condemning contraception. Nowadays Christians who don’t see birth control as a sin will say that Onan was killed because he disobeyed God and not for spilling his seed on the ground. The Jews, the early Christians, protestant reformers and every Christian up to 1930 understood this passage as condemning birth control.

Jews

Jewish Commentary on Onan

“[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death” (Bereshis: Genesis [Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1980]. 5:1677)

experiencefestival.com/a/…ons/id/1817637

“The Jewish interpretation is that Onan spilt his seed, and therefore was deserving of the death penalty (see e.g. Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a)”

jewishjournal.com/nation/…trol_20100715/

“Orthodox Jews prohibit males from using contraceptives such as condoms that waste the “male seed,” a teaching derived from Genesis 38:9-10, in which God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground during intercourse.”

Church Fathers:

St. Augustine says: ‘For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do, and for that God slew him’ (cf. Gen. 38:8?10)."

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Clement of Alexandria: “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])

Protestant Reformers:

Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”

John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”

Even C.S. Lewis argued in the Abolition of Man that birth control will be the means by which man decides who is and isn’t born instead of God. In Mere Christianity he points out that the high degree of sexual promiscuity in modern times could only happen as a result of the acceptance of birth control.
 
No defense here- I think the Catholic church has been proven right on this issue!
Hubby and I started to get into pro-life after we married and about 10 years ago I bought a book through a pro-life resource call “The Bible and Birth Control” by Charles D. Provan.
Provan is a Protestant- I think a conservative Presbyterian but I’m not sure about that.
Anyway the book is a goldmine quoting of Protestant leaders through time who spoke out AGAINST artificial birth control, including the Reformers, Puritans,Pilgims ect. Changed my thinking! I have since read other Protestant resources against b/c as well.
Luther, Calvin ,Wesley, ect. even some 20th century(mostly pre-1960)
I think the birth control pill especially has lead to the downfall of our society, the sexual revolution-Humana Vitae is right.
And beyond the pill and separating sex from procreation opens the door to genetic engineering and manipulation.
Hubby and I practice NFP…
Some of the Protestant resources are even against NFP but I think it’s a great way to space/limit your family if absolutley necessary and I’ve also gotten to know how my body works so much better than I did when I took hormonal contraceptives.
BTW hubby and I are thinking of becoming Catholic or Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top