Childlessness is rebellion against God

Evil men may lie and get away with it for a season but that does not mean they will escape trouble. While I thank you for your encouragement, regarding my "hermeneutic" in kind response, I'll encourage you to believe the words of the Lord our God.

 

Skimming over the last few pages of this thread, I appreciate some of the points of concern that some of my BB friends such as Magnetic Poles, annsni, Joshua Rhodes, and Bible-Boy have brought up. [BTW, Bible-Boy, love your avatar!! Is your family of Scottish heritage too?]

I agree that the "Train up a child" passage in Proverbs is not a 100%, in-all-cases-without-exception, iron clad guarantee.

I know several very dedicated Christian parents who did all that they could to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord only to have some of their children totally reject their parents' teaching.

Also, I do not believe God's curse is upon Christian couples who for medical reasons cannot bear children.

While some of these couples have gone on to adopt children, in the strictest sense that isn't really "multiplying and filling the earth" since they had nothing to do with that child's birth.

 

Yep, Clan MacThomas! And you?

 

"Advice"? This isn't some contemporary psychologist providing counsel these are the words of God spoken through a son of God, inspired, written and preserved since the beginning of time. If He is your Lord why would you not take his "advice" to heart and consider it to be a command?

Very well. There's multiple interpretations.

What would've happened if Adam and Eve had one child? Would they have multiplied?

I am not familiar enough with the situations you describe to begin to comment. If they are as you describe, then I guess you believe that they were trained up in the way they should go and they departed from it.

 

The point is not to simply acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations (I think you definitions). The point is that the basic definition that both you and Strong's offered is that the term multiply means simply to increase in number. Do you see that? Do you agree?

They would have had one child. Then at the right age either one or the other could have had another child with that now adult. I don't think that would have been a moral/ethical issue regarding incest because no matter how to slice it our very first ancestors had to interbreed to fulfill the commandment. However, we are talking hypothetical here and it does nothing to advance our discussion becaue that it not what happened.

No I don't believe that they departed from it. I believe that although they were raised according to biblical Christian family principles they never fully embraced that teaching and never became born-agian believers in Christ. I have given you all the information that you need to comment based on your interpretation of the Proverb. Don't cop out with you don't know enough ploy. Just answer the direct question please. How does a situation like these two line up with your guaranteed Christian child interpretation of the Proverb?

 

I agree but as I've argued twice before. Having one child does not mean that they have increased in number. The parents will die, one child will remain and where there were two, there is now one.

Then they would not have had one child. They would have had more than one to multiply. My question was what if they just had one? Adam would have died, Eve would have died and one child would've remained. Not only would they not have multiplied but they would have caused the human race to go extinct. All things being equal and without divine intervention, if Christians were to maintain their current attitudes about children, Christians would also go extinct or they would have to maintain a conversion rate that exceeded their lack of propagation,which is not happening.

 

Bible-boy --See my PM to you about being Scottish.

 

If we really believe that it is wrong and somehow limiting or circumventing God's will by not having one child, isn't it wrong to limit Him by not having two, or three, or four, or a dozen?

Seems that if we're going to argue that choosing to not have kids, by whatever method of birth control we use, is wrong in any case, then it is wrong in all cases.

So, it looks like we are backing ourselves into the Roman Catholic corner on birth control.

Les

 

The problem here is coming from the fact that you are failing to acknowledge that 2+1=3 which is an increase in number. When you start importing these expanded definitions regarding population replacement (maintenance) and exponential growth in numbers you are going beyond the basic definition that you agreed was correct.

That is all well and good in a post-fall economy. However, when God issued the commandment for Adam and Eve multiply they would have lived forever had the fall not occurred. So your point is mute. Besides given the extremely long lives of our first ancestors I could think of all kinds of possible ways that they could multiply without Adam and Eve both having to have had more tham one child.

 

It is wrong to try to control something that should be given up to God's will.

This would be a consistent position.

Just because they are an antichrist church does not mean they are wrong on all issues. Further, they understand what we apparently do not. Children, typically take on the religious beliefs of their parents. The reason why Catholics have 1 billion adherents is because they advocate being fruitful and multiplying. The reason why there are 1 billion Sunnis is because they are fruitful and multiply. An aspect of why there are a mere 16 million SBC adherents is they do not embrace being fruitful and multiplying, I suspect Mr. Mohler understands this.

Setting aside the racist elements of this "gentleman's" quote. He understands what American Christians do not.

"We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population." - Jose Angel Gutierrez​

Insert "aging Christianity" for "aging white America" and you will perhaps see why this issue is important. Those that are making babies (Catholics, Muslims, Mormons) are going to have a much greater influence on this world, then those that have given up making babies for other ambitions.

 

In addition to my previous comments regarding this post on the previous page I need to add a couple more thoughts. Since at the time when the commandment to multiply was given Adam and Eve would have/could have lived forever God must have had some other purpose than to simply populate the earth. So we must ask why He would command them to multiply. Then we must look to see what the rest of the entire Bible has to say about the peoples of the earth. I think we find the answer in Revelation 5. It was God's intent to receive worship from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (every people group that will exist on the face of the earth) for His own honor and glory. This is the driving force behind the commandment to multiply. So how can we best accomplish the task and meet God's expectations? Can we best do it by simple procreation? Or can we accomplish this better by making disciples who in turn make disciples etc.?

 

Both are commanded, and both bring glory to God.

 

Yep, and in a post-fall world that already has people living in every part of it, where should the focus now be?

If a Christian family has one child (or even two of the same gender) would it not be reasonable to conclude that they have indeed increased in number by means of procreation?

Likewise, would it not be reasonable to further conclude that their obligation to help fill the earth with God worshipers would be better served by making disciples, teaching them to make disciples who in turn make disciples, and so on?

 

There are not people living in every part of the world. There are plenty of wide-open spaces.

On the face of it, it is reasonable. For that moment in time, they have gone from two to three. However, within junior's lifetime mother will die and father will die leaving only junior. What was two, then three is now one, thus they have subtracted not multiplied. If you consider that people sometimes die before they have children, then junior may be dead before he procreates. This is why in order to merely sustain the population you need 2.1 births per couple, in order to increase / multiply, you need more than that.

It is reasonable, but it is not within the context of what God commanded when He told our ancestors to be fruitful and multiply.

 

Any man can be a source of sperm but it takes a godly man to be a dad.

The kind that one multiplies has much to do with how they disciple them. Some are discipled ot be rebellios and others are discipled to walk with God. God also said to be fruitful. In the NT fruit is synonymous with something good not just numbers. Satan has his numbers and they are certainly not good.

 

This is a "priesthood of the believer" issue IMO...unless we're talking abortificant birth control.

Restating what I said earlier...Why are our seminary presidents beginning more and more to act like Catholic cardinals/bishops/popes...offering "fatherly advice" on any/every area of human existence? Why can't they just run the seminaries and let local church pastors handle what is their business? Or better yet, let the leaders of our homes handle these things?

 

Because they think they can be a junior Holy Spirit. They also feel that they must intervene and persuade the local churches to their point of view. Another reason is because they only have students for a few years and the students want to get through. I have received email messages from some of their former students telling me that they did not dare voice an opinion for fear they would be expelled and not get a degree.