A Birth Control Quiz

[PastorGreg]

As far as the original issue, unusual as this is, I have to agree with our Catholic friends on this one. Remember that before the mid-1960's contraception was illegal in much of the US. The arguments that the supreme court used in handing down Roe v. Wade in '73 came from Griswold v. Connecticut decided in 1965 after PP of CT was fined for distributing contraceptives. In other words, the arguments for abortion were the next logical step after the barn door was opened by legalizing contraception. If God is God and by definition the author of life, who are we to infringe on His sovereignty? The argument that God can overrule contraception if He wants (and He obviously can) is like saying one can stand in front of a speeding train and if God doesn't want him to die yet, He will save him. Larry, I agree with you on a lot of issues, but your misuse of I Tim. 5:8 to support birth control is way out there. (by the way to answer an earlier question, we have 6 kids, 2 of whom are adopted.

)

 

[Eladar]

If God is God and by definition the author of life, who are we to infringe on His sovereignty?

This reminds me of the argument "if God wanted us to fly He'd have given us wings".

 

[BobRyan]

CalvinG said --What did God mean when He told us to "fill the earth?" That the earth should consist of a mass of humanity which, but for a miracle, could not be fed from the natural abundance of the creation?

Whether birth control is sinful is something which might change as the population of the earth changes because it is to be judged on the basis of humanity's fulfilling God's instructions.

Thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Bible we are told that both sleep and eating food are a gift - a blessing from God.

So also is the ability to have children.

But both of these require stewardship, intelligence and the ability to manage our actions appropriately.

The idea of "mindless eating" or "mindless sleeping" or "mindless pro-creating" is not a concept promoted in the Bible. Although in aggrecultural societies children were a resource for the home and the farm. 12-15 children on every farm would have been considered "a good thing" in many cases since it was not starving the children to do so - nor was it outside the means of the parents to support, nor was it turning the place into a desert. (or was it?)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

Your eating analogy is terrible (no offense).

Your analogy would require eating all the food you want and then vomiting it up in order to avoid the consequences, whereas the Catholic view would be to simply eat in moderation, according to a regular period (3 meals a day) and not whenever we feel like it.

 

[Carson Weber]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:

As far as the original issue, unusual as this is, I have to agree with our Catholic friends on this one ... If God is God and by definition the author of life, who are we to infringe on His sovereignty?

PastorGreg.. Bravo!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

I will not say that there is never reason to space births or to delay pregnancy. But I will say that as God is generous with life so should we be.

Blessings.

That's about the best way to put it. Nice job.

 

[thessalonian]

"I would like to add here that I think it is possible that mankind, with the number of people presently on the planet, have substantially fulfilled God's ongoing command to "Be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth." "


First of all I find it interesting that we can't even get Protestants on this board to agree that this command is for all of us, though it seems rather unlikely that Adam and Eve could accomplish the task on their own. That he gave the command to others is I think indicactive that it was for all of mankind. It seems to me that if it is a truth that at some point the command was fullfilled it would take another revelation from God to confirm that since scripture couldn't possibly confirm it, unless of course you can find it somewhere in John's writings toward the end of the canon. I don't see it myself. Further it would seem difficult to say that the earth is full. Anyone saying such a thing has not taken a drive accross Wyoming, South Dakota, or Canada. My understanding is that all the people of the US could quite easily be fit in to Texas. I'll leave it to God to tell us when the command is complete. Human subjectivity on such issues has it's problems. My guess is the command will be complete (and so will the rest of scripture) at the second coming.

Blessings

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
Larry, I agree with you on a lot of issues, but your misuse of I Tim. 5:8 to support birth control is way out there. (by the way to answer an earlier question, we have 6 kids, 2 of whom are adopted.

)

I didn't misuse 1 Tim 5:8 to support birth control. What I said was that a man who brings more children into the world than he can support is worse than an infidel. The application/implication of that is that a man should take proper precaution to avoid bringing children into the world that he cannot provide for.

I am glad that you have 6 kids of whom two are adopted. That is wonderful.

I think your attempt to say that abortion is the logical end of birth control is flawed for several reasons. First, birth control and abortion are two different issues for prolife people. For the prochoice, they may be the same. For us they are not. Second, there is no reason why a "logical end" is a necessary end. The RCC took the teaching of Christ about "one body" to its logical end; it was not a necessary end and indeed they have erred in the application of it. Those who believe that a particular version of Scripture is the only word of God for a given language have taken the doctrine of Scripture to its "logical end" but not a proper or necessary one. They, like the RCC, have read into Scripture their own conclusions and have come away with a false but "logical" conclusion. These "logical end" arguments are always tenuous because the "logical end" is neither always necessary nor the proper result of the teaching accurately applied.

 

[thessalonian]

"I think your attempt to say that abortion is the logical end of birth control is flawed for several reasons.'

The cause of legalized abortion WAS ABC! When the contraceptives failed the people demanded abortoin to keep their cold hearts from welcoming the children they had already rejected in to this world. Anyone who has read Paul VI's encyclical written in 1968 (abortion was legalized 8 years later) would see his prophetic words that this would happen. See my post a few pages back in which I quote his prophetic words to that document.

Blessings

 

[OsanOj]

Well I can say one thing for this thread. It kept me entertained for about 2 hours. I have no dog in this fight since I have two kids and my wife for medical reasons cant have any more. The thread sort of reminds me of my kids when they were younger playing army in the backyard. "I shot you, you are dead"...."no I am not you missed you are dead"....lol. Fact is neither side can provide a scriptual basis for their belief. Like I said I have no opinion one way or the other but its an interesting subject.

 

[CalvinG]

I think that I implicitly conceded that God's commands to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth" were to humanity general.

Someone stated that the entire US population could fit into Texas. Would Texas produce adequate food to feed them all, even in bad crop years? What would Texas then look like? Texas is where I was born, and I don't really wish that fate upon her unless God does.

I believe that the USA already exports significant quantities of food to overpopulated areas of the world..."overpopulated" in the sense that domestic agriculture cannot, in some years, provide the basic food needs of the population.

How do those of you who oppose birth control on principle until the time of the second coming promise to prevent the development of this into a planet-wide issue? I'm curious.

You are correct that there is an element of subjectivity as to whether we have fulfilled these commands. Unless God Himself speaks to us, we cannot avoid subjectivity. This is not the first time when I wish God had spoken with greater clarity. I'm not trying to change God's words...merely to apply them.

For instance, if we were all supposed to accept the spiritual authority of the Bishops of Rome, that could have been made more plain by Jesus.

I don't think God expects us to bat 1.000 with respect to some of these things which are not clearly made into sins in Scripture.

CalvinG

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Calvin

if we were all supposed to accept the spiritual authority of the Bishops of Rome, that could have been made more plain by Jesus.

If you were a Jew reading Matthew's Gospel in Palestine (i.e., Matthew's audience), Jesus did make this as clear as day in Matthew 16:16-19. That is, if you were a Jew well versed in the Old Testament.

God revealed a mystery to a man. That man revealed the mystery to the King. The King then anounced this fact and appointed this man over his household as vizier or prime minister.

#. King, Man, Passage
1. Pharoah, Joseph, Genesis 41:39
2. Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Daniel 2:47
3. Jesus, Peter, Matthew 16:13ff

Jesus' language also parallels Isaiah 22:20-22, wherein Isaiah prophesizies that the evil prime minister Shebnah will be replaced by Eliakim.

In the OT, the office of Prime Minister entailed its holders replacing one another by means of succession (e.g., Isaiah 22:20-22), and in the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) holds this office instituted by the King, the Messiah, the Christos.

This is why I am a Roman Catholic and how I know Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Calvin

if we were all supposed to accept the spiritual authority of the Bishops of Rome, that could have been made more plain by Jesus.

If you were a Jew reading Matthew's Gospel in Palestine (i.e., Matthew's audience), Jesus did make this as clear as day in Matthew 16:16-19. That is, if you were a Jew well versed in the Old Testament.

God revealed a mystery to a man. That man revealed the mystery to the King. The King then anounced this fact and appointed this man over his household as vizier or prime minister.

#. King, Man, Passage
1. Pharoah, Joseph, Genesis 41:39
2. Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Daniel 2:47
3. Jesus, Peter, Matthew 16:13ff

Jesus' language also parallels Isaiah 22:20-22, wherein Isaiah prophesizies that the evil prime minister Shebnah will be replaced by Eliakim.

In the OT, the office of Prime Minister entailed its holders replacing one another by means of succession (e.g., Isaiah 22:20-22), and in the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) holds this office instituted by the King, the Messiah, the Christos.

This is why I am a Roman Catholic and how I know Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so.

In a similar fashion it can be said that Jesus could have made it much plainer that God the Father did not forsake him when he said "my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me.". Actually since all know that he was directing the Jews to Psalm 22 which he expected them to get and v. 24 of that passage clearly indicates that God the Father did not forsake his son there is no problem. That Jesus pointed directly to the office of steward in Is 22:22-23 with his words in Matt 16:19 regarding the keys and the Binding and Loosing is just as clear. The steward was the spokesman for the king (see 1 king 18 where the Steward Eliakim came out to meet the Assirian General and spoke for king Hezikiah. The keys denote authority but also succession. I have keys to my house given to me by the previous owner. I will someday pass these keys on to another owner.

Blessings all.

 

[Carson Weber]

Thess,

That's why you cannot possibly comprehend the New Testament without being immersed in the Old Testament. In the Biblical studies my graduate program guides us through, we are encouraged and sometimes even forced to meticulously learn the Old Testament so that we will have the eyes and ears of an Israelite.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"I think your attempt to say that abortion is the logical end of birth control is flawed for several reasons.'

The cause of legalized abortion WAS ABC!

You have yet, to my knowledge, to tell us what ABC is.

When the contraceptives failed the people demanded abortoin to keep their cold hearts from welcoming the children they had already rejected in to this world.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
If you were a Jew reading Matthew's Gospel in Palestine (i.e., Matthew's audience), Jesus did make this as clear as day in Matthew 16:16-19. That is, if you were a Jew well versed in the Old Testament.

God revealed a mystery to a man. That man revealed the mystery to the King. The King then anounced this fact and appointed this man over his household as vizier or prime minister.

#. King, Man, Passage
1. Pharoah, Joseph, Genesis 41:39
2. Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Daniel 2:47
3. Jesus, Peter, Matthew 16:13ff

Jesus' language also parallels Isaiah 22:20-22, wherein Isaiah prophesizies that the evil prime minister Shebnah will be replaced by Eliakim.

In the OT, the office of Prime Minister entailed its holders replacing one another by means of succession (e.g., Isaiah 22:20-22), and in the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) holds this office instituted by the King, the Messiah, the Christos.

This is why I am a Roman Catholic and how I know Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so.

Very creative, but completely unsustainable from SCripture apart from the mandate of those who have a vested interest. Close analysis of the OT without the bias of need shows this theory to be totally devoid of textual and exegetical basis. As you say, a deep knowledge of the OT is necessary. Unfortunately, this post does not reflect that.

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
"I think your attempt to say that abortion is the logical end of birth control is flawed for several reasons.'

The cause of legalized abortion WAS ABC!

You have yet, to my knowledge, to tell us what ABC is.

When the contraceptives failed the people demanded abortoin to keep their cold hearts from welcoming the children they had already rejected in to this world.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]ABC is artifical birth control.

You are wrong though....some forms of birth control ABSOLUTELY do cause abortion. Not the intention of the user, but they cause abortion all the same.

A little research will prove this out.


LaRae

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

I assume you also believe that marijuana is not a gateway drug.

And that being exposed to violence will not assist in conditioning a person to accept violence and possibly later commit it himself.

Or that culture in general does not shape the future actions/decisions of a person.

Because if you believe the following, then you have a point. But you would also be willfully ignoring the obvious in order to hold to your sinful tradition of acceptance of artificial birth control. Because it IS a gateway to the demeaning of the procreative function of the sexual union, it does dull the mind of the importance of bringing forth children, and the wide acceptance of it most certainly paves the road for further and more risque methods of preventing newborn life.

Does this happen to ALL who use it? No, of course not. That also in no way means that the act is morally acceptable.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by LaRae:
You are wrong though....some forms of birth control ABSOLUTELY do cause abortion. Not the intention of the user, but they cause abortion all the same.

A little research will prove this out.

I don't dispute that. That wasn't at issue.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
I assume you also believe that marijuana is not a gateway drug.

I think it sometimes is, but not always. I have done a lot of research on it.

And that being exposed to violence will not assist in conditioning a person to accept violence and possibly later commit it himself.

Being exposed to violence will condition one to be desensitized to it. However, the connection between exposure and commiting crime is miniscule which proves my point. The number of people who commit violent crimes is a statsically negligible percentage of the number of people who have seen violence in the media and entertainment, regardless of cause of the crime. Which proves my point above ... believing that BC is acceptable is a far different issue that believing that abortion is acceptable.

Or that culture in general does not shape the future actions/decisions of a person.

[q/b]It certianly can; it does not always do so.

[qb] But you would also be willfully ignoring the obvious in order to hold to your sinful tradition of acceptance of artificial birth control.

I haven't accepted the sinful tradition of BC.

Because it IS a gateway to the demeaning of the procreative function of the sexual union, it does dull the mind of the importance of bringing forth children,

No it isn't and no it doesn't. A stronger argument can be made that the increases the importance of bringing forth children because of the intent to bring them into this world. But there is causal relationship seen here, and that is your fallacy.

and the wide acceptance of it most certainly paves the road for further and more risque methods of preventing newborn life.

Only for those not driven by the principles of Scripture. Those of us who are driven by the principles of Scripture will have a guide for this.