Thread: Contraception and the Sin of Onan

Just as a technical point, God opens and shuts the wombs of goats and sheep as well, and there are probably a hundred places in Scripture where it says that. But no successful, serious farmer ever lets his livestock breed naturally. You wait until a certain age, and even after give certain amounts of time between for the female to recover.

We stopped after 7 after doctor's advice, the last couple pregnancies having gone progressively worse, with long periods of convalescence after the last couple. I always wanted 12!

As to whether it was sin or not, it probably was in one way or another, since we all sin dozens of times every day. But the question is one of "sin for every person at every in every era of history".

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world. I just am not bright enough or knowledgeable enough to even imagine I have some sort of special revelation or understanding that would leave my conscience free to be so dogmatic.

You can have the basic premise that kids are good, kids are a reward, God wants you to have kids, a woman is sanctified in childbirth, couples are generally foolish to wait, etc... and at the same time hold that in some cases preventing a pregnancy is also acceptable, and perhaps even best.

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few?

This, to me, is the key.

It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and only a few children "to show for it."

That's why we never should.

Originally Posted by Albatross

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.

Does an open womb necessitate a full quiver?

No, as I stated earlier, that is a goal to shoot for, not a requirement or a limit.

Cheers,

Adam

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.

Can you clarify this for me?

It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and only a few children "to show for it."

This is an abuse of a biblical truth, rather than the truth itself. When we say the goal is thus and such, and we say that there are good faith and bad faith attempts to reach the blessed state, that does not mean there is any shame to a good faith attempt. They are blessed as well. But they are cursed who make bad faith or no faith attempts.

A man may be cursed with five children, who wanted fewer, but received more.

A woman may be blessed with one, who wanted more, but received fewer.

The second case wanted to be blessed and enriched with children, the first wanted his way, and didn't get it. The first has cause for shame; the second has cause of rejoicing.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:40:58 EST-----

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.

Can you clarify this for me?

Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?

For example, do you believe that if God decrees that my wife and I are not to have children for the next 2 years, that God will have predestined something like my sperm to have motor defects over the next 48 months, or do you believe that there would be no natural explanation for for our inability to become pregnant, but that it is purely outside the realm of the ordinary? Phrases like yours above usually leave me feeling like you believe the latter - can you weigh in?

This is pretty much what I think, but that he will perhaps use the first or the second, or even that when your wife is ovulating, that you are busy, tired, or 'have a headache' that night. I just can't buy that God will leave it up to me to decide, and set the terms and conditions.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:44:25 EST-----

Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?

Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 03:51:54 EST-----

When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?

I was actually afraid of this when I wrote that 'He used His hand directly'. Please don't misconstrue my meaning.

What I am actually talking about is that we are stopping a natural occurrance in this case, that in freely giving one to the other, we would conceive as a natural consequence, should God ordain that a child will result from this union. In using contraception, we are contravening this.

In speaking of the opening and closing of the womb, I think of Rachel and Leah, for instance. In other instances, we also see opening and closing of the womb, and don't see any external force acting upon it besides His hand.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?

Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)

Augustine stated that a man who uses contraception with his wife is committing adultery. Contraception and abortion are virtually the same, according to Calvin and Luther. The desire not to create life and the desire to take life are viewed as the identical desire in the lion's share of theologians throughout time. This used to be the case in America, until the rise of modern eugenics.

Cheers,

Adam

I think that the bible is clear that sex is pleasureable and that it is good to have it to satisfy the urge.

I think that Onan practiced coitus interruptus because he didn't want to give his brother a child not because he just didn't want to take the chance on another kid he couldn't afford... God killed him because he was dishonoring his brother's wife and his brother, by just using her for sex when he was supposed to be performing the duty of a kinsman.

So, if one is having sex with their spouse I believe it is ok to take measures to not concieve, provided they are safe and don't hurt or kill anyone. Any abortive substance is not good, neither is any substance that harms the health. Safe use of contraception is not explicitly or even implicitly condemned in the bible.

As far as spousal affection is concerned I think the sky is pretty much the limit. Song of Solomon has some very explicit sexual acts in it that God obviously approves of in spousal relations or they wouldn't be in there in the context that they are.

God made sex for two reasons, pleasure and conception. Obviously, he alloted much more time to pleasure or the world would have been overpopulated ages ago. God made sex plesurable for a very good reason. We should thank him for it.

Wouldn't the motives for using contraception be a very important question to discern for someone struggling with this issue?

I often speak to those who propose that all Christians have the liberty to use contraception. Yet, when we talk, the underlying theme is not liberty, but a "fear" of not being able to provide for their family, or not having the quality of lifestyle which they deserve because of their children. The focus becomes their desires, and not God's. Idolatry become prevalent, grounded in their pursuits, and not God's.


To be consistent, having as many kids as you can, could become idolatry also. I have seen those who are always striving to have more kids, all the while they are not content with what God has given them. The quest becomes to have more, more,more and happiness and joy is predicated on more children - and not on God himself.

I think when answering this question, people need to be careful to examine their motives in arriving at an answer.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Is it not more arrogance to reject the well-nigh uniform teaching of fathers, scholastics and reformers for a few thousand years? Not to mention patriarchs, prophets and kings?

Yes, but with regards to what, specifically? (I'm honestly not trying to be dense; really!)

Augustine stated that a man who uses contraception with his wife is committing adultery. Contraception and abortion are virtually the same, according to Calvin and Luther. The desire not to create life and the desire to take life are viewed as the identical desire in the lion's share of theologians throughout time. This used to be the case in America, until the rise of modern eugenics.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam:

Could you provide us some quotes and references for the underlined portions of the post above? Thank you.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.

Can you clarify this for me?

Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

Originally Posted by TimV

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

You can say so if you want, but for me, it would be arrogance to take a different stand then pretty much all the Reformed churches in the world.

Can you clarify this for me?

Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.

Only the Church of Rome.

Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----

Originally Posted by Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.

Originally Posted by DD2009

Originally Posted by TimV

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Can you clarify this for me?

Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.

Only the Church of Rome.

Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----

Originally Posted by Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.

He was a papist? I didn't know that.... Where is the proof on that?

Originally Posted by Romans922

Originally Posted by DD2009

Originally Posted by TimV

Pretty much all the conservative confessional Reformed churches take strong stands on Justification, the Trinity, Election, Inerrancy etc.. but reading through denominational position papers I'm not sure how you could claim any sort of ecclesiastical authority behind the no birth control for any reason mentality.

Only the Church of Rome.

Here is Pope Pius VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae that reaffirmed the Vatican's absolute ban on birth control in the turbulent 1960's when many liberal catholics were calling for a change from Rome.

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 04:43:09 EST-----

Originally Posted by Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

We agree with Augustine on predestination and election. But there are many things we disagree with him on. He was still a papist in the Church of Rome for instance.

He was a papist? I didn't know that.... Where is the proof on that?

Well, the papists certainly are proud of him if he wasn't one...that would sure be odd...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Augustine of Hippo

Of course they are... Was the Catholic Church pagan in the 4-5th centuries? Did they have popes? I don't think that had started yet, and if it had it was just a bishop (nothing like what you see in a pope today). The Catholic Church in Augustine's time was not heretical. It was THE VISIBLE CHURCH.

Seems like you need to study church history a little more or at least understand that all pre-1000AD Catholics aren't all that bad...

Are you going to call all of the Church Fathers 'papists'? Anselm, Thomas Aquinas? (They are praised by RC).

#1 is what Augustine referred to as making your wife a whore.

With all due respect...

Augustine said many bizarre things in terms of sexuality...

Sexuality is not only for having kids... As a matter of fact, the logic of I Corinthians 7 implies that marriage is mainly to satisfy sexual desire...

Hey Everyone!

I am not at all against contraception. I believe the exegetical arguments against contraception to be extremely reductionistic. I don't even see anywhere in the text of scripture where a couple must have children.

That being said, I do think that 1 Corinthians 10:31 needs to be brought into this:

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

I think the reason why people have reacted the way that they have is because they see people using contraception for ungodly, selfish purposes. Rather than using contraception as a way to serve God in other areas, people use it to serve themselves. This is, indeed, a problem. However, I don't think the problem is the contraception; it is the way the contraception is used.

From the books that I have read, historically, the idea that contraception is wrong comes from a gnostic background. In gnosticism, the physical is evil, and the spiritual is good. The gnostics believed that sexual relations were evil simply because they were carnal. Christian authors tried to defend sexual relations by arguing that they are necessary for procreation. However, they never gave up the dualistic ideas. Sexual relations were sometimes called a "necessary evil." What happens if you take away the necessary part from the necessary evil? You get evil.

God Bless,
Adam

Originally Posted by Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."

I am not settled on the matter, so you can also take what I say with a grain of salt, but aren't "normal" marital relations the very thing that would be used by God to make babies?
Also, I do believe that some people having many children can cause pride in the "quiverful" family, or shame in the barren (or less children) family. Or it can also cause joy in the QF family and sadness in the barren family. Or it can cause sadness in the QF family, and joy in the barren family. And any other combination of any other emotions. But our response to this is to love. The family with many children should love, and not judge or esteem itself above, the family with fewer children. The family with fewer children should love, and not be embittered against, the family with many children.
I think what you are speaking of is the result of sin in the hearts of the people involved, and not the necessary reaction to either scenario. Many people have one child and consider their quiver full and fully blessed. And those who don't can pray to God for his help to recognize the ways that he has blessed them. On the contrary, those with many children may not feel blessed, as they may be always striving for more and focused on what they don't have or they may be weary from having so many children, etc. They too can pray and ask God for his help to see all that he has given as a blessing.

Originally Posted by Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

Curious, why not NFP or RM, if others?

Originally Posted by Romans922

Of course they are... Was the Catholic Church pagan in the 4-5th centuries? Did they have popes? I don't think that had started yet, and if it had it was just a bishop (nothing like what you see in a pope today). The Catholic Church in Augustine's time was not heretical. It was THE VISIBLE CHURCH.

Seems like you need to study church history a little more or at least understand that all pre-1000AD Catholics aren't all that bad...

Are you going to call all of the Church Fathers 'papists'? Anselm, Thomas Aquinas? (They are praised by RC).

To the best of my knowledge they believed in 7 sacraments, sacerdotal grace of holy orders, praying to the saints, and that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and was the Vicar of Christ over the Church universal....so I probably would call them papists. I think the Church of Rome was corrupt almost from the beginning and truely advanced it's corruption under the Emperor Constantine.

I have these books at home in regards to views of the ECFs. It seems most of them were very diverse and very Catholic.

Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 Volumes: William A. Jurgens: 9780814610251: Christianbook.com

This may not fall into this argument but I think that it provides a unique perspective.

(I apologize in advance if this is too revealing, but I will proceed anyway)

My wife recently found out (about six months ago) that she had a blood clot in one of her ovaries. She was advised by her hematologist that if she were to get pregnant before it dissolved that she ran a serious risk of dislodging it and sending it either to her heart or brain. Both of which could result in serious ailment including stroke, heart attack, or death. She was placed on blood thinners and pain relievers (as it caused tremendous pain at times) and ordered to rest as much as possible.

Now, having said that, my question is this: Should we have not taken every precaution (which we did in limiting our marital activity and using prophylactics) or should we have run the risk of not taking said precautions and allowed whatever would have been?

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!

In what way?

Originally Posted by he beholds

Originally Posted by Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."

I am not settled on the matter, so you can also take what I say with a grain of salt, but aren't "normal" marital relations the very thing that would be used by God to make babies?
Also, I do believe that some people having many children can cause pride in the "quiverful" family, or shame in the barren (or less children) family. Or it can also cause joy in the QF family and sadness in the barren family. Or it can cause sadness in the QF family, and joy in the barren family. And any other combination of any other emotions. But our response to this is to love. The family with many children should love, and not judge or esteem itself above, the family with fewer children. The family with fewer children should love, and not be embittered against, the family with many children.
I think what you are speaking of is the result of sin in the hearts of the people involved, and not the necessary reaction to either scenario. Many people have one child and consider their quiver full and fully blessed. And those who don't can pray to God for his help to recognize the ways that he has blessed them. On the contrary, those with many children may not feel blessed, as they may be always striving for more and focused on what they don't have or they may be weary from having so many children, etc. They too can pray and ask God for his help to see all that he has given as a blessing.

Jessi, unless I am misreading you, I believe we may have a misunderstanding. The point of my post was that I'm not sure the "strive after as many kids as you can have" mentality is right: rather, I was suggesting that it may simply be better to just have normal, sexual relations (without birth control). And in doing so, even if it is only one child granted by the grace of God (or 20), we may all still find ourselves blessed by the LORD. In other words, I don't think birth control is good; but I'm not necessarily sold that our goal should be to have as many kids as we can, either: rather simply to "be married," so to speak, and let come what children will come.

My point about the feelings of inferiority and shame was that if we have the mentality that we're supposed to be having as many kids as we can, then those couples who are simply regularly having sex (still without birth control), but not intentionally trying (through careful timing, etc.) to have kids have the potential to be looked down upon.

[Note, however, that this is *not* to say in anyway that I think endeavoring to have children through whatever method is wrong at all! For those who have had difficulty having children and accordingly have a deep desire for the same, they can surely be out there using whatever prudent methods and means are at their disposal to aid in the process!]

Originally Posted by Romans922

Augustine also had some crazy views on sex (not a real good source to go to on this one)...

Part 3: I'm okay with some forms of birth control. However, I am not for NFP (natural family planning) or the Rhythm Method.

What would be your argument against using NFP or Rhythm Method?

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Albatross

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.

When the Bible talks about God as the one who heals all your diseases it does not mention he used Tylenol. Should we avoid it?

If God heals our diseases, and we use Tylenol, then presumably we are using the means appointed to His desired end.

If God opens the womb, and we use our marriages to fill our quiver, then we are using the means appointed to His desired end.

If God opens the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are not using the means appointed to His desired end.

It appears that your argument refutes itself.

Cheers,

Adam

Conversely, if God closes the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are using the means appointed to his desired end.

It cuts both ways.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!

In what way?

Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, IMHO.

Similarly, if we are to be wholly in the hands of God in this matter, child rearing (and negate our God given ability to think, reason, and make sound biblical decisions as stewards) should we also avoid taking necessary precautions when driving, i.e. not wearing our seat-belts, reading while driving, talking on our cell phone's; or not taking precautions in our everyday environments, like looking before we cross a busy street (or any for that matter), learning to swim before jumping into a deep pool, etc.? After all we are in the hands of a sovereign God and if it is our time then it is our time. It seems that we have no problems making these types of decisions daily but deny any possibility that God in his infinite wisdom could possibly allow us to make decisions regarding our famiy's size.

Side Note: Don't get me wrong, I have six children and would love any God gives me above and beyond that, but that doesn't mean that I can't make a prayerful, reasoned decision as a steward of my family to stop where I am and focus on my responsibility to raise the children that I do have in the care and instruction of the Lord.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."

Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" before she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...

There are many syndromes out there that doctor's prescribe "the pill" for. One case would be Yasmin (the pill) for PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).

Is this sin? Should the woman just deal with the hormonal imbalances, weight gains, and increased risk of cervical cancer?

An observational study of Yasmin in the management... [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004] - PubMed result

Originally Posted by Daniel Haley

There are many syndromes out there that doctor's prescribe "the pill" for. One case would be Yasmin (the pill) for PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).

Is this sin? Should the woman just deal with the hormonal imbalances, weight gains, and increased risk of cervical cancer?

An observational study of Yasmin in the management... [J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004] - PubMed result

what did women do before Yasmin?

On the whole, contraceptives have done massive damage to our society. They have certainly done much more harm than good.

One situation where I don't think it's wrong to use them is when the wife has a medical condition such that she would likely die from another pregnancy.

Edit: It should be understood that abortifacients are not in view in the above exception.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."

Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" before she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...

This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, "Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control." The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing in itself; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]

Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, IMHO.

And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 06:28:18 EST-----

Good things will happen!

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Prufrock

But when is it that "closing wombs" is ever described as a blessing? So the God who opens and closes wombs is akin to saying "the God who blesses (opens wombs) and withholds (closes wombs)."

Either way (and take this with a grain of salt from an unmarried man), I'm not sure that the idea that we are to try to have as many kids as possible isn't itself an over-reaction to the birth control mentality. Are we really supposed to shoot for "lots" as opposed to "few"? Or are we just supposed to have normal marital relations and leave it to our God to decide whether to grant us many or few? It seems that when we place an emphasis on having as many kids as possible, it creates a feeling of shame or inferiority in those who do not attempt to prevent pregnancy, but simply have normal marital relations, and have only a few children or no children "to show for it."

Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" before she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...

This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, "Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control." The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing in itself; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]

I disagree with this - as I said in an earlier post, we make decisions like this all the time. Why is it any different with children?

And we also have to remember the historical context of the Old Testament. In that time, childbearing was crucial to every culture and every family - thus everyone wanted as many children as possible. That's no longer the case today. From a economic and cultural perspective, NOT having children is often a blessing today.

I do believe we should be fruitful and multiply - I just don't think we can make the argument from silence that because God never "blesses" a woman by closing her womb it means birth control is sinful. I don't think that's a leap we can make...

ColdSilverMoon,

Conversely, if God closes the womb, and we are using birth control, then we are using the means appointed to his desired end.

That does seem to be the key issue. In all of the texts which say that God opens and closes the womb, does it ever say that he must always do so apart from human means?

God Bless,
Adam

Originally Posted by Hebrew Student

From the books that I have read, historically, the idea that contraception is wrong comes from a gnostic background.

You may want to start reading some new books. Gnostics would be against having sex and having children; they are both fleshly.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Certainly my wife's health is more important than the possibility of conception. I have a responsibility to care for all that has been entrusted to me as a steward of God. Therefore taking precautions to prevent potential harm would fall under being a good steward, IMHO.

And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 06:28:18 EST-----

Good things will happen!

I'm not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God's will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn't happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

Certainly God could have prevented it, and did for that matter, but it is very dangerous to say that He would have. That is somewhat akin to jumping off of a cliff and saying God will save me as opposed to God could save me if it is according to His will.

P.S. Don't jump off of a cliff!

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Actually, in the case of both Sarah and Hannah God's closing of their wombs could be considered a blessing: both needed barrenness for their spiritual maturity. Sarah needed the development of faith, while Hannah needed to wait until her heart was willing to have a child for God, not for herself. Note that Hannah was "no longer sad" before she became pregnant, not after. The blessing was the assurance of God's presence and resting in Him, not the temporal blessing of a child...

This is true, but such secret counsels and purposes of God are hidden from us, and we cannot base any of our actions upon them. Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves. Paul was never *supposed* to persecute the church. So likewise, we could say, that God did close Sarah's womb for a time for his own purposes: but this in no way implies that we should say, "Maybe he has purposes to close my womb for a time, and so I will help and use birth control." The closing of the womb is simply never presented in scripture as a blessing in itself; and we can only base our actions upon what has been revealed -- not upon the hidden counsels and purposes of the Almighty. [And neither Sarah nor Hannah were trying to not have kids!]

...And we also have to remember the historical context of the Old Testament. In that time, childbearing was crucial to every culture and every family - thus everyone wanted as many children as possible. That's no longer the case today. From a economic and cultural perspective, NOT having children is often a blessing today...

I think the crux of this discussion is whether or not the cultural change you have highlighted is a biblical one or not and whether we should bow to what the culture considers a blessing.

Christusregnat,

You may want to start reading some new books. Gnostics would be against having sex and having children; they are both fleshly.

Christusregnat, you are knocking down a strawman. What I said is that this position came out of Christian polemics against the gnostics because they shared elements of their neoplatonic dualism [expecially with regards to sexuality]. I agree, they were inconsistent to argue in this fashion. They should have gotten rid of the dualism, instead of getting rid of the contraception.

God Bless,
Adam

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 07:10:52 EST-----

Prufrock,

Even though (of course!) these are different classes and sorts of events, we could just as easily say, "God purposed for Paul to persecute and destroy the church for a time, that his grace might be more grandly seen!" This is, in fact, true. But it is also irrelevant to the manner in which we are supposed conduct ourselves.

However, it seems like that is exactly his point. Whether or not something is a blessing is something that is irrelevant to behavior. Even things that we think, from our perspective as bad, can, in fact, be a blessing. His point is that it is irrational to argue:

1. x is a blessing.
2. Therefore, it is immoral to willfully decide not to have x.

That is a non sequitor.

God Bless,
Adam