Contraception and the Sin of Onan

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the Bible, God tells us to have children, but he doesn't tell me how many or when to have them. He tell me to marry, but He doesn't tell me who or when or how to propose. He tells me to work but He doesn't tell me what career. Christians should humbly and prayerfully submit to God for their childbearing - when they feel He wants them to have children, they should do away with the contraception...

Scripture tells us that children are a blessing. Scripture tells we married folks that we are to give ourselves one to another freely (stopping only to devote ourselves to prayer and fasting). Scripture tells us that He opens and closes the womb.

How exactly, in this context, do you feel that you influence when you have children, assuming a healthy sexual relationship between you and your spouse? A coming together of husband and wife is fruitful because of His hand, not because of the biological union of sperm and egg.

I whole-heartedly with your last sentence - but it fundamentally undermines your position. If we will have children when God wills, then no contraception will stand in the way. So what's the harm in using it, unless you believe God's plans can be thwarted?

Children are a blessing - so why does that preclude contraception?

Giving to each other freely sexually is wonderful - but that passage is in reference to sexual gratification, not childbearing.

God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?

I do believe that we will have all the children that God wills us to have. I also think that me trying to have a say in when shows that I do not fully trust God in His timing.:2cents:
 
I've actually tried to share this before, but I could never figure out how to create it in the right format on google docs. I think I finally have!!
Here is a timeline showing the shift in view from "procreation" to "reproduction."

Please, if something gives you offense, read the notes beneath the timeline first!
Procreation Vs. Reproduction
 
I whole-heartedly with your last sentence - but it fundamentally undermines your position. If we will have children when God wills, then no contraception will stand in the way. So what's the harm in using it, unless you believe God's plans can be thwarted?

The harm is "I have a better idea," and declaring one's own sovereignty in this arena. Scripture says: do this. So we do. We don't create a reproductive 'false fire' in the bedroom because we have 'a better idea'.

Children are a blessing - so why does that preclude contraception?

That particular reference does not, but does specifically denote that children are a blessing.

If God said: I will bless you with $1million dollars a year for the next ten years, who would say no? But when he says: I will bless you with one child a year for the next ten years, we run as fast as we can. And this in light of scripture showing us that children are a blessing, while money can bring problems.

Giving to each other freely sexually is wonderful - but that passage is in reference to sexual gratification, not childbearing.

That may be, but what is the natural consequence of this abundance of sexual activity?

God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?

Is that what He used in Scripture? No. It is His hand directly.
 
God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?

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

This is the part that I think I may misunderstand. Are you saying here that God uses natural processes to open and close the womb, or is this perhaps an example of God overriding "natural" events to open and close wombs?

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?
 
God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?

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?
 
God does open and close the womb - but can't contraception be the means He uses to open and close it?

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?

Why can't I state things as simply as this? This is what I was getting at.
 
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
 
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

Again, this assumes 12 or 13 = 1 filled quiver for every individual couple. If this can be definitively shown, I think a lot of the arguments for contraception will go away.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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-----

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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-----

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.
 
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-----

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?
 
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-----

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
 
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.


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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top