Featured Family planning.

Uhmmmmm.......

Let's seperate the points being discussed, as it seems there's some apples and oranges going on here.

It seems that we are mixing welfare cheats who view having another child as being a way to earn a larger check with born again Christains who believe God keeps His word.

Let's use this premise for the original question.

1) A married couple walk in the faith.

2) A married couple WORK to provide for themselves and their children.

3) A married couple do not crave the lastest, greatest, best, the world offers for themselves or their children. ie bigger house, nicer car, latest fashions, a house filled with cheap plastic toys and electronic babysitters.

4) A married couple who will actually prepare a homecooked meal and thank God for their blessing when they as a family sit around the dinning room table. Even when that meal is only blackeyed peas and rice.

Is God pleased or displeased when that couple takes steps to prevent the birth of a child? God said go forth and multiply. For the couple outlined what exceptions to that are acceptable to God?

 

This was not specified in the OP.

By the way, ALL of my examples of what you called "welfare cheats" believe they are born again, ALL have been to Bible college, several of which were studying to be pastors or missionaries.

Godly couples who work and love God may have very valid reasons for wanting to plan their families carefully: Health issues, maturity issues, paying off debt, age of the couple, spacing pregnancies due to job loss or relocation, being in the military. . .the list goes on.

 

It wasn't specified in the OP and I only made a suggestion to help limit and define the debate.

There's a difference between "welfare cheats" and people who are in need through no fault of their own. We are to help those who can't help themselves. We aren't to help those who can and won't. Reference: Sluggard

Yes, Godly couples can want to "plan" their families. The question: Is that what God wants? Does God allow exceptions because of what Christians want to do vs they need to do, according to His plan for their lives?

Health issues - God blesses those who give their lives for another.
Maturity issues - Did the couple or God decide when they should marry?
Paying off debt - Does God approve of debt?
Age of Couple - Isn't that God's decision with regards to age?
Spacing - God does that, too. There are scripture examples of God "spacing" children, regardless of the age of the parents, according to His will.
Jobs, regardless of types - Doesn't this put man's "work" above God's promise to provide?

 

Should we plan any aspect of our lives? If so are we not "wholly trusting God"? It sure sounds like it.

 

Exactly. That's the part I just don't get here. We plan where to educate our kids, where to work and what field of work to study and prepare for, where to live in choosing a home, etc. We even have scheduled church activities and monthly bills to budget. We even (gasp!) try to control our health by taking vitamins and medications.

So, why is it okay to plan our finances, our jobs, our living arrangement, where we go to church, etc. but suddenly we aren't "trusting the Lord" if we plan our families?

After our first dd was born, the doc told me not to have any more children due to pregnancy complications and health issues. We waited 4 years to have our second child, and at that time it was necessary for us to stop having children altogether. I am glad I "trusted the Lord" to provide me with knowledgeable doctors to give me sound medical advice.

God blessed my dh and I with two children. We are content with that number. Sorry, but having tons of kids doesn't make anyone "more spiritual" or "more obedient" than anyone else.

 

In reading through this thread, there are some areas that need to be sorted out. They include: the woman's body, the man's body, the duties of husband and wife, and the matter of birth control.

Rather than listing these in some order of importance, I will make the following general observations:

It is the woman's body and her choice on birth control, just as it is man's body and choice to have a vasectomy or not.

Man (husband) should to listen to the woman (wife) and offer support without being critical or biased when considering type and use of birth control.

It is not the man (husband) who should ever make the decision of type or use, nor attempt to influence the decision of birth control.

Many marriages are strained and even broken by the male dominant thinking and the wife's indoctrination that obliges "submission" to the husband. If she wants children or more children, it is her body that is impacted. Man should leave the decision to woman.

If the wife wants children (which most do), then she should decide how many, and when. She should decide the type of birth control that she is the most comfortable in using, and the man is to be supportive and an information gatherer to this process. The husband is not to be the decision maker.

Should the wife, ask and seek the husband's decision in a joint effort, that is for her to initiate. However, it is the woman's ultimate decision and not for the man to make. The husband is to be submissive to the wife in this intimately sacred and holy area.

When childbirth is no longer desired, it is not for the woman to prevent further pregnancy, but the man. He should get the medical service needed to never again allow his seed to impregnate a woman. The wife need not continue to have to use a birthing control if she desires no more children.​

 

This is the complete opposite of what Scripture teaches. The husband is the head of the home, and while decisions are shared in any marriage the husband is the leader. The authority is not the wife's.

 

The post was very Scriptural in principle.

Leadership is not one who demands conformity - that is dictatorship.

"The head of the home" is not the role of decision maker dictator style.

The head of the home is not the sole ruling authority over the home. No where in the Scriptures does a Godly person ever rule the home in such a fashion.

Any husband that has been married more than 30 minutes knows well the proverb of the safety of the corner of the rooftop.

Mama's aren't happy the home is not happy.

Foolish is that man who thinks they "rule the home" and that everyone must submit to their "final authoritarian" decisions. That isn't a home, it is a interment camp.

Not to derail the thread into the role of the husband, but just to give the general biblical principle.

The husband is:

the protector, the provider, the Spiritual leader, the male role model, the author (one who asks for the hand of the bride) and finisher (one who is responsible to establish the last will and final estate), the great counselor, the mediator, the father figure, peace treaty presenter, the mighty man of valor, ...
​

In THOSE Scriptural roles is found the husband as the leader of the home.

The thinking that the husband is the dictatorial final authority of all faith and practice of the home is NOT Scriptural.

The Scriptures state, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: ..."

Show me how dictatorial headship is any part of that verse.

Any man with insight who loves his wife will acknowledge that she is far more aware of her own body and that of her husbands body than any husband is capable to ascend. God has granted the Godly wife a certain perspective and insight in which the husband has no right too interfere except to encourage and enhance ("but nourishes and cherishes it").

Leadership - that is Godly headship allows for the Godly woman to attend to what God has appointed for HER body. Man has enough trouble understanding himself much less trying to understand the woman.

 

Taking all of the quoted statements above, the woman is, as you state in your previous post: "the role of decision maker dictator style" when it comes to birth control.

Scripture for this....is where?


This:

Directly contradicts this:

 

Besides the good questions and points ITL has, who said anything about dictatorship? Not I. Is the President the dictator of the company, or does he oversee and have final say on everything within the company?

 

How does planning education equal the denial of human life?
How does where/what one does for a living equal the denial of human life?
How does a house equate to a human being?
Does God give mankind the right to schedule new life as if it were a VBS session?
Does God view children cash flow on a budget?
Does God expect us to consider what He created from dust to have no more value than a vitamin tablet?

In an earlier post, I mentioned there were 5 of us. Which one or ones of the 5 of us should our parents have denied existance? So far, no one has answered that question.

Another question, please.

What's the difference between denying existance, abortion by birth control pills & IUD's, abortion after implantation, abortion at partial birth, and/or simply smothering a baby when it exits the birth canal? How does God view the names never given the opportunity to be recorded in the Book of Life because individual human decisions denied them life?

 

God gives each woman a certain number of eggs. Not all of those will become a child. So, is God denying life to some of those eggs? If God wanted them ALL to have life, he wouldn't have given each woman THOUSANDS of eggs with that potential.

Spacing a pregnancy using a barrier method is a far cry from killing an unborn child. The two are no where near related. Using birth control wisely is not denying life, it's choosing WHEN that life will come.

As for choosing which of you or your siblings should have been denied life, I was not trying to imply that at all. If a godly couple can provide for their family, I don't care how many children they produce. That's between them and God. My beef is when people claim to "trust the Lord" when they are really trusting Uncle Sam and the taxpayer to feed, clothe, house, and medically pay for their family.

Aside from the physical and spiritual caring for one's family, what a married couple does regarding birth control is between them and God.

 

I was a bit delayed in getting back to the BB to respond.

There were a couple responses in what I view as portraying the Scriptural principle of the authority of the wife over her body and in the home.

The principle of husbands loving the wife extends to husbands recognizing the strength, character, and Godliness of the wife in decision making areas in which she specializes.

In keeping in the theme of the thread, below are a few character illustrations from Scripture to show how the Godly woman basically did not consult nor seek approval from the husband in matters of the home and more specifically as it related to her body and having a child or not.

Eve was the first to be wise (knowledge of good and evil) and it seems that women have a continual head start on insight, intuition and manipulation from that scene in Eden. From birth, the woman seems to have an alarming ability to detect and discern while men generally thump about quite unaware. Men seemingly come late to the game of perception and the wise husband will rely most heavily upon the senses and inner "eye" of the Godly wife.

In Exodus 4 there is an interesting insight into the home of Moses. The wife of Moses, Zipporah, took charge making significant religious decision in the home. Perhaps (for it is unknown) Moses and she had talked, but the fact remains that the wife took the initiative and resolved the issue. Not the husband.

Numbers 30 discusses the headship aspect of the father and later husband being able to "disallow" a vow of the woman/wife to God. However, the fact that the vow was able to be offered by the wife outside of father/husband authority shows that there is a certain level of decision authority of the woman/wife in the home.

It was barren Hanna that sought the Lord and was given Samuel. Where was Elkanah in decision making in the process? Was his prayer life less than sterling before the Lord that his wife could assault the throne of Grace more earnestly?

The Scriptures do not make a case one way or the other. The point being she was the concerned one and took matters in hand. And further, after the birth of Samuel, when it came time for the family to journey to temple, do not the Scriptures state that Hanna refused to go with Elkanah? Obviously he inquired, but she stated she wasn’t going until she could deliver the child to the Temple keeping forever. There is no indication that Elkanah had any voice in the decision of when Hannah was to conceive, birth, the education of Samuel, nor the delivery time to Temple keeping.

Did Mary, the mother of our Lord, discuss with her espoused husband before she allowed conception? Not in the least. In fact, there is no indication she ever discussed it with Joe, rather rumor carried the news to him and an angel had to intervene to prevent his intent to divorce her.

One other illustration could be the wonderful woman of Proverbs. While her husband sits around, she is industrious. There is no indication that she consults him in her decisions of commerce, and home. Her children and husband both honor her.

The principle of Scriptures show that in the home the wife has full authority to make decisions of physical, financial, spiritual, social, educational, and all other matters. That does not usurp the husband’s role or duty. Rather, in the practical sense, the roles are as the rails of a train track. Both must run parallel and true, or catastrophe will be great.

A final note to the male dominated thread.

Because man historically, as some mighty bullfrog of the pond, been the dominate role in society, it is easy for some to misuse authority and make that misuse seem Scriptural when it is not. The following short addition to help the wise and Godly husband is offered.

Though I do not see it stated in the thread, it is never the less sad that a man has to puff up thinking that the wife has to run all decisions by him for approval.

Such thinking is not Scriptural, and no places in Scriptures give that authority to the husband or portray the role of the Godly wife is to be submissive in that way – especially when it concerns her body and the choice of having children or not.

She may submissively include him in the decision process, but ultimately she is the final authority over her position as wife, woman and mother. She is responsible for her body being healthy and how it is used.

Should she submit to her husband? Certainly, as he should be the head of the home, the one in which God holds the responsibility for the outcome.

But, the Godly wife is not less authoritative than the husband in the home. The Godly wife isn’t some iron pot that can be thrown down into the bottom shelf, but is delicate ornate embroidery of rich texture and resilient strength. A vessel made of finest workmanship, of such quality that it is to be highly adorned and cherished.

Some would translate 1 Peter 3:7 “weaker vessel” as one who is feeble, sickly and assume the wife IS the weaker vessel. However, that is NOT the intent.

Paul is saying the husband is to TREAT the wife with deference as you would when around one who is feeble and sickly. That is, put the wife's concerns first. Husbands should sit down, shut up, and listen to the wife, just as you would a “weaker vessel” and don’t ignore them. Open the door for them. Hold their hand. Honor them in every area of your living. Never, ever, is the wife, whether in public or private, to be less than the absolute top priority of the husband. The wife is not weak, she is the heir of God; to be honored that the family prayers are not hindered.

Lastly, it is the decision of the wife and God as to birth control and conception. Husbands need to leave the decision in their capable hands.

 

First, I agree that a woman has thousands of ova with the potential to become half of a person. Added to that a man has what, millions ? of sperm with the potential to become half of a human being. One of each has to combine to produce the miracle of life. A unique life. All the eggs a woman's body produces aren't identical. Nor are a man's sperm. If they were, all the children of a couple would be identical. That's definitely not the case. BTW, identical twins are not produced at the moment of conception, but afterwards.

It's in God's plan to deny life to some of those eggs and sperm. If that were not the case, upon reaching puberty women wouldn't have a monthly cycle and men wouldn't have wet dreams. Further, upon marriage, every woman would become pregnant during the first month of her marriage. That's certainly not the case among those who do not practice any form of birth control.

It's also in God's plan to deny life after conception. If that were not the case, spontaneous (natural) abortions and miscarriages would not happen.

Each month a woman releases one or more unique ova that are ready for fertilization by a unique sperm or sperms. If it's God's plan for those two elements to combine they will become a unique individual. (Unless God wants identical twinning to occur after conception.) When man interferes, overrides, God's plan by any method, that unique human being does not come into the world. What's the difference between preventing the conception of that unique individual and killing him or her after conception? The end result is the same because man determined that a person should not exist, rather than God making that determination.

By "scheduling" births parents are saying each month, we don't want what God has planned for us, in the event that conception would occur. We don't want this unique person to have existance. Money, job, new car, college loan, etc. are more important to us than the UNIQUE child God would have brought into this world. We'll wait and pick another one, when the time is right in our estimation, not the Lord's. But we don't want THAT ONE.

Does God approve of any measure that interferes with His purpose for creating individuals? That's my continuing question.

In the Bible and in the world today, we see an example of mankind's decision to take "scheduling" into our own hands. Sarah decided to use Hagar to produce Ishmael from Abraham's seed. If Sarah had not taken matters into her own hands, would the strife between Ishmael's and Issac's decendents be in the news everyday?

Yes, I agree that all things that people do are ultimately between them and God. That said, should I support anything, give approval to anything, that God would condem? If God does not approve of birth control and I support it, how is that any different from supporting same sex marriage? After all that's another form of birth control within the context of this thread.

Lastly, as this post is getting way too long. As previously stated I do have an issue with the government assuming the responsibility of supporting children when that IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of their parents. The Bible is also clear about who should provide support for widows and orphans. No where do I remember any scripture that defines that responsbility as resting with the government. (Please let me know if there is biblical support for same.)

In closing, part of my issue with this subject is the standards that society sets that leads to approval of all forms of birth control based on parent's wealth. It is wrong to bring children into the world if their parents don't meet society's view of what is an acceptable standard of living? Did God, the Father, measure Mary and Joseph's wealth when He brought His only begotton son into the world?

 

This is directed at agedman:

Along these same lines, suppose a 40 year old man has three children and wishes no more children. His wife, who is 34 years old, doesn't care what her husband thinks--she wants 8 kids. She shuns any birth control, knows her monthly cycle and manipulates it so as to coordinate peak fertility with romantic, seductive dates with her husband.

Is this blameless, scriptural activity on the part of the wife?

 

Two areas come to mind in these responses.

First, the discussion of "how many" should have been hashed out before marriage. I suppose that some men might feel "caught" in having to support children they don't want. I have dealt with weak, sorry men who left their wife because she became pregnant and they blamed her. They didn't like to answer the question, "How did the wife get pregnant?" They were too weak to acknowledge their own responsibility in the matter. I didn't have one that ultimately wasn't looking for an excuse to shun responsibility of fatherhood.

Second, if the man doesn't want "8" kids, then he has authority over his own sperm and can have a simple medical procedure done to prevent him being able to impregnate the wife. It is his body, and the procedure is his decision.

Adam blamed Eve. Generally, men have not stopped blaming the wife even when they physically abuse them. But, men have choices just as the woman does.

It is not her sole responsibility to prevent pregnancy. The man doesn't want anymore children to support then the man needs to gather up, do the manly responsible thing, and get fixed. Don't blame the wife if you have 8 children and haven't done preventative work about it.