A Birth Control Quiz

I don't dispute that. That wasn't at issue. </font>[/QUOTE]You said:

"This is a non sequiter. There are many people whose contraceptives have failed who did not pursue an abortion. The two issues (BC and abortion) are really unrelated. There are a great number of people who use birth control who would never consider abortion under any circumstanes. The attempt to link them together seems a desparation move when all else (like convincing us from Scripture) has failed."

It is NOT an unrelated issue. There are many "Christians" out there who persist in using methods of birth control that cause abortion...even after they have been informed of the effects.

If you get into the mentality of preventing conception, what will you do if you get pregnant on accident?

Do you realize that half of the 3000 abortions preformed in the US each day, are done to women who have had previous abortions? Do you think none of them are using contraception?


LaRae

 

Larry,

You didn't catch what I was saying, apparently. I said IN MY POST that it is not always, which was the entirity of your post. My point is that the more it gets, the more it will serve these functions for more people, and the more it HAS done, as we can see by looking at the culture of death around us, the rise in abortion, the rise in divorce, the devaluing of human life, etc. Obviously it doesn't affect everyone the same, but your response did not disprove a correlation.

 

"This is a non sequiter. There are many people whose contraceptives have failed who did not pursue an abortion. The two issues (BC and abortion) are really unrelated. There are a great number of people who use birth control who would never consider abortion under any circumstanes. The attempt to link them together seems a desparation move when all else (like convincing us from Scripture) has failed. "

Are ya blind man. You don't think that women who use contraceptives and then one night say "oops out of pills, oh well" and get pregnant then go get an abortion. Did I every say all people who use birth control get abortions. No. But failed Birth Control leads to abortion. Birth control leads to a coldness toward life which also leads to abortion. Birth control allows men to buy possessions that they have to make payments on and so cannot afford another child. When the child is concieved the man says "sorry honey, can't afford it. Gotta pay off the boat.". But Larry will put his head in the sand and say "non sequitor. Not every couple does this.".

This whole thread is quite telling. We have 2 Protestant pastors in direct opposition. A half a dozen other protestants from all for ABC (Artificial Birth Control for Larry's benefit) to some forms are okay to none is okay. And we have a half dozen Catholics who live in different states. Have come to the Church in various ways, and who are essentially in agreement. Do you think the Lord does not want us to know what his law entails. It is written on our hearts. (rom 2:15). Some of you are just plain lying to what God has planted in you. Fess up.

Blessings

 

Perhaps I missed something. I was referring to your post trying establish a connection between Isaiah and Matt 16. There was no evidence there. Perhaps you are referring to another post or perhaps you meant to include some and simply forgot. The point is, Carson, that your idea of "evidence" is tremendously different because of your persuasion. For you, "evidence" means that the Church said so. For me, I operate on the basis of Scripture. There is nothing in Matthew 16 that would lead us to believe that Christ was referring to Isaiah. Nothing at all!!

Exegesis means "reading out." We should go to the text and read out of it what is already in it. You have practiced "eisogesis" ... you find what you want in the text. This reference to Isaiah is eisogesis. It is not in the text. The most you might get is an allusion, or a borrowing of a key phrase (no pun intended).

You will have to do substantially more exegetical work on the text to prove your point. If you have done so, and would like to post it, I would like to see it. You will probably, like someone else who I asked (Ron I think) defer to actually post your evidence.

Because the Scripture does not say what you said. I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Perhaps you are jesting here ... apart from that, it is inconceivable that you think what you posted above is evidence. That would never be accepted as an argument for something anywhere I attended school. If it is at your school, then so be it ... I am unconvinced because of the lack of evidence.

I didn't assert anything. I said that Isaiah cannot be legitimately used as you use because the language of Christ in Matthew 16 provides no connection for us. You and your church have made the connection; not Christ. The bias of need simply means that you and your church need to find support and so you go looking for it. In so doing, you have not used the text fairly to this point. As I say, perhaps you have done more work on this than you have posted here. If so, please post it. Let's see the exegesis so we can take a look at it.

Are you kidding??? You think that post is "excellent OT background and parallels"?? What kind of academic world are you in??? Let's take a look at what you said:

No scriptural support. Weak on connection for your point. Here you have this sequence: God-man-King-vizier. In Matthew 16, the best you have is God-King-vizier; but believing in teh deity of Christ you really only have: Christ-vizier. Therefore, this line is irrelevant inasmuch as it is not supported either before or after and inasmuch as it is not a parallel thought to the text of Matthew 16.

So what??? This is not what you said above. IN the first two cases, the man appointed is of higher spiritual value than the man appointing. In the last, you reverse the order, thus proving your parallels invalid. In the first two, the man appointed is given political authority, not spiritual authority. Therefore, your parallel yet again breaks down. There is no argumentation here. There is no connection to what Christ said or did. Lastly, Scripture never makes these parallels. You have created those from your own mind, not from Scripture.

Now, after all of that, we finally get to an attempt at relating the passages together.

Isaiah 22:20-22 20 "Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant (a)Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 And I will clothe him with your tunic And tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your (1)authority, And he will become a (a)father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 "Then I will set (a)the key of the (b)house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will (c)open.

Let's ask about the parallels?? Where are they? You said they exist. Show them to us. Christ is not deposing anyone from leadership (as the Isaiah passage mandates). The passage is historical by the time of Christ ... in other words, it has already been fulfilleD (CF. Isa 36:3). There are too many dissimilarities to equate the two. There is nothing in the two passages that would lead us to connect them.

Demonstrate to us that the Key of David in Isaiah is the same as the key ot the kingdom in Matthew. Tell us how the two situations are parallel. That would be evidence and substantiation. You did neither. (BTW, there is a better NT passsage to deal with in respect to Isa 22; that would be a better place to make your point ... Of course, I think it would fail your point, but it is an actual allusion).

This is what I mean when I say you didn't support it. To say that there are "parallels in the language" is not the least bit shown. You did not demonstrate those parallels. Secondly, you must show why those parallels involve intended connection. Thirdly, you must tell us why a prophecy directed to a specific person and fulfilled in that specific person has a broader intent than what it spoken on in the passage. To this, I suspect your only answer will stem from the bias of need, i.e., We need this authority from the OT so let's go find it.

 

That is true ... But I am not referring to those people and that scenario. You keep trying to make me say something I am not saying. I will stand against BC that causes abortion.

Recognizing the value of the image of God in man in human life, you have the baby. That is not a hard decision at all. What is controversial about that?

I have no idea, but every single abortion is murder. Why they are pregnant or how they got that way is irrelevant. Abortion is murder ... period.

 

I don't need to disprove a correlation. I don't argue with that. We are not talking correlation; we are talking something deeper. That some people might do something is one thing. If they do it, they are wrong. Period. But not everyone does that. You are trying to paint everyone with the same brush and I reject that. You are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended). To say that someone people misuse something does not mean that the thing, in and of itself is wrong. There are people who use the TV for wrong purposes. That does not mean that a TV is wrong. There are people who use guns for wrong purposes. That does not mean that owning a gun is wrong. It is not sound argumentation to use a worst case scenario to paint those who disavow the worst case scenario. When people are wrong, you confront them on it.

You have admitted that most Catholics disagree with the church on a great many issues. How would youl ike it if I painted you with that brusah and accused you of certain positions because the majority of Catholics hold those positions?? You would rise up and scream in your own defense.

When you try to paint me with the positions of others, I am simply distancing myself from them. I do not agree with those who use abortive methods of birth control. Do not try to paint me as if I do. I will stand against those who use such methods and I will tell them it is unbiblical. There should be no confusion about where I stand.

 

Nope

Not always.

Not always.

Not always.

Totally wrong ...

Read my response to GraceSaves. You are trying to paint with a brush that I refuse to be painted with. I stand against those who devalue human life. I stand against abortion for any reasons. When you engage in sexaul relations, whether with BC or not, you are taking a chance. And if you take that chance, then you live with teh consequences. Abortion is always wrong.

It is you who needs to fess up. It is not we who are following a manmade authority. (I understand you disagree with that and that is fine for this discussion). You are in essential agreement because you follow the same authority ... an authority I don't share.

To try to make my position clear: Scripture condemns the taking of human life; it does not condemn the prevention of human life. I know what God's law entails. If your conscience does not allow you that freedom, then that is your issue and you must live by your conscience as formed by the word of God. You are to not judge those who conscience dictates to them differently in an area where God's word does not give a command (Rom 14).

Scripture does not address BC. It does address murder. Therefore, I stand against the taking of human life, from conception to the grave, except in the cases of capital murder which God ordained as a protection for the sanctity of life. I allow liberty in the area of BC that does not involve abortion because God's word does not speak to that.

Now, please cease from representing me as believing something I do not believe. That is unnecessary and unproductive. I do not make you out as believing something you do not believe; I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

 

Sort of reminds me of a joke I heard, goes like:

The Baptist preacher was opposed to pre-marital sex, because it might lead to.......dancing!

 

But "allusion" requires more than a concordance to determine it. Simply finding the same words in different texts does not qualify for an illusion.

Yes, no connection demonstrated. As I say, the mere recurrence of words does not qualify for an illusion. There must be similarity and intent. The prophecy of Isaiah 22 was clearly fulfilled in a concrete way that is far different than anything Peter did. The prophecy of Isa 22 removed a disobedient man from leadership and placed a man in his stead. That already happened.

To say that Christ used similar words is not a problem. To use the passage in Isaiah in support of Matthew is unfounded. The two situations are dissimilar.

Having said all that, let us assume for the moment that you are right. That does not mean that Peter was the first pope, or that apostolic authority has been handed down from that. There is nothing in Scripture and nothing from the words of the apostles to substantiate that. This is in no way connected to the bishops at Rome. You have provided no actual evidence for that which gets back to my original point. Assertions are not evidence.

Where is any of this?? You do not have God-Peter-Christ-Peter in Matthew. I don't even see that in the OT figures you use. Furthermore, you offer no evidence as to why this is important how it is connected to the topic at hand. All leaders, whether good or bad--righteous or unrighteous, are appointed by God. God often uses secular men to accomplish his will. That is not in dispute. But to assert this line of authority is unsupported. Peter did not reveal any mystery to Christ.

Again, we have the explanation fo need and convenience it seems to me. I don't see anything here that supports your point.

 

One problem with revelation of "mystery" to the King...

Jesus knew who He was. So there is no revelation of any heretofore unknown mystery by Peter to Jesus. I think this causes the analogy to fail.

Blessings,
Calvin

 

[q/b]I don't think you have any allusion whatsoever because there is no indication in the text of any such allusion.

But Isa 22 is a prophecy. It is not about cabinets of ministers. That is why it doesn't work. It is not talking about that.

The NC kingdom as described in teh OT cannot be the church. The langauge used to describe the NC Kingdom precludes the church. Again, here is a place where understanding the OT background enables one to see through this argument you have put forth. When you study the NC passage in Jer 31, there is absolutely no legitimate textual way you can remove Israel and replace it with the church.

The NC will be the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant. It is not yet in place, as shown by the clear language of the NC.

I wouldn't argue with this necessarily. But as I point out, we are not in the NC. The OT background precludes the NT church from that. The NC was made with the house of Judah and Israel (terms never used of the church), people whose fathers broke the Mosaic covenant (made on the day when God led them out of Egypt, something he never did to the church and whose fathers never broke that covenant). The passage furthermore describes that the covenant in view promises that the ethnic nation of Israel (already defended and described) will never cease to be God's people unless the sun, moon, and stars cease and unless the heavens can be measured.

This clear language precludes the church from being the NC kingdom. We are not the house of Judah and Israel; our fathers were not led out the land of Egypt; our fathers did not have the Mosaic covenant made with them; our fathers did not break the Mosaic covenant (since it was not made with them). Furthermore, the nation so described will never cease to be God's chosen people and they will be restored to the land as described in Jer 31.

But they are not given apostolic authority. I am an overseer in the church of Jesus Christ. I have no apostolic authority and the church in Rome has no authority over me.

But this is all very tenuous and depends on accepting your presuppositions which I do not accept. The text does not say this. This is creative exegesis on your part.

 

I don't think the analogy succeeds on enough points as an initial matter. You yourself point out other failures of the analogy.

When one reasons by analogy, it is useful to use other cirucmstances that are very close to the circumstances presently under consideration. You will likely agree with me on this point.

I hope you can see how this doesn't look "close enough" to Protestants. And I do not think it is that we Protestants are "close-minded" although undoubtedly some Protestants (and some Catholics) are. This just doesn't have the clarity one would desire. And this lack isn't something we Protestants have manufactured.

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

Failed Birth Control leads to abortion.

"Not always."

Birth control leads to a coldness toward life which also leads to abortion.

"Not always."

Birth control allows men to buy possessions that they have to make payments on and so cannot afford another child.

"Not always."

Pastor Larry, your response of "not always" seems to leave room for undesired consequences (even sin) to follow the use of artifical birth control.

If that is a possibility, would you not agree that it better for that reason to avoid it?

Surely you would agree that it would be better for a person to avoid alcohol or smoking because for some it is addictive or for some it results in bad health even though not always.

Surely you would advise a married man not to develope friendships with women that exclude his wife because it may lead to adultry although not always.

From that perspective, would you not agree then that it is more in keeping with living a Chritian life to avoid artificial birth control?

 

Nope. I have seen everything you have said. I remain unconvinced by your "evidence."

The church in dispensationalism was never plan B. It was a mystery known long before from age past but not revealed until the proper time (Eph 3).

Which is replacement theology ... the replacing of Israel with the church.

Not at all. The NT Christian participates in teh blessings of the NC through the death and resurrection of Christ. To participate in teh blessings is not the same as participating in the covenant.

James was writing to ethnic Jews who were members of the church. They were scattered from Jerusalem because of persecution (Acts 8). They are still ethnic Jews; that didn't change when they became Christians.

Nice misquoting of the text. You left out a little word ... a little word that shows the contradiction between your position and Paul's.

Galatians 6:16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Why would you do that? The word is "kai." You can't just leave out words you don't like. Clearly, Paul is discussing two groups: Those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God.

He is referring to the church. In the church, both Jew and Gentile have equal standing. That does not annul the promises God made (as Paul says in Gal 3). He is not transferring promises here. He is acknowledging the unique nature of the church as a people with no national boundaries.

Did you forget that Paul was a Jew?? There were probably a contingent of Jewish believers. However, that does not negate the clear promises of the NC passage. You can't just redefine words because you don't like it says.

Then you would be either a dispensationalist or a historic premilleniallist. To be grafted onto the olive tree may be an argument for historic premillennialism. It may be ... I think there is an answer for it however.

Romans 9-11 is an insurmountable passage for the honest exegete. It very clearly shows a distinction between Israel and the church. If you approach this passage to determine what the passage says, you cannot avoid the conclusions that there is a distinction between Israel adn the church, and that Israel has not been cast off in favor of the church.

But historical sources ahve no authority. The NT is the authority for the NT church.

But with all due respect, you have not indicated an intimate knowledge of the OT. I agree it is necessary. That is why I am a big student of the OT and have focused my seminary work in the OT and Hebrew. My ThM is in OT. And I find myself totally unconvinced by your "intimate knowledge" because I don't see a proper and judicious handling of the text in it. I am a dispensationalist because of the OT. I don't think dispensationalism is without difficulties. All scenarios have difficulties. But it is far and away the most exegetically sound approach because it can be derived from the words used by the authors as they stand ...

But I am sure none of that has to do with birth control so perhaps we should return this thread to its owners ...

 

Not always

[qutoe]If that is a possibility, would you not agree that it better for that reason to avoid it?[/quote]In your two examples below, I would agree. In your third I would not.

Owning a gun may lead to murder. Should you not own a gun for that reason?

Flying on a plane may lead you to hijack that plane? Should you not fly on a plane for that reason?

Driving a car may lead to road rage. Should you not drive a car for that reason??

You see, for every example you put forth, I can put forth another. It is not so cut and dried as the "what it might lead to" argument.

No, for the reasons that I give above. There is nothing unchristian about non-abortive methods of birth control, just as there is nothing unchristian about owning a gun, driving a car, flying on a airplane, or countless other activities that one may involve themselves in. If owning a gun leads you to shoot someone, then the shooting is sin. If driving a car leads to road rage, then the road rage is sin. If failed birth control causes you to abort, then that abortion is sin. Don't confuse the latter with the former. One is sin; one is not.