-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Chosen Childlessness
- Thread starter PastorSBC1303
- Start date
We must carefully review to what extent God wants us to trust Him, and when He expects us to use common sense and do things ourselves. An incident I use as an example is when I had a tire go flat about 2 AM on a dark, rainy night, on a dark highway, w/o a lotta room to pull off the road. I prayed to God to protect me, and I trusted Him to do so, but I knew He expected me to use common sense & observe the road for traffic, turn on my 4-way flashers, and to change my own tire. I did my part, and God did his, as I emerged unscathed except for a little dampness.
If we simply go ahead and do the things that bring kids about when we already have all we can afford, and all we can have enough "quality time" with, we are not acting responsibly, and may even be DARING GOD!
If we simply go ahead and do the things that bring kids about when we already have all we can afford, and all we can have enough "quality time" with, we are not acting responsibly, and may even be DARING GOD!
And I feel it's a matter of conscience, same as tobacco use or as eating meat offered to idols was in Paul's day. I don't think it's wrong for a couple to have a busload of kids if they can both pay for them and provide enough attention to each one...nor do I think it's wrong for a couple to have no kids if their circumstances don't allow for them to properly provide for them.
A couple could have plentya money, but if they cannot provide enough ATTENTION for each child, if they were to have a large family, then I don't believe they should.
A couple could have plentya money, but if they cannot provide enough ATTENTION for each child, if they were to have a large family, then I don't believe they should.
Hope of Glory
New Member
The same laws that said that Onan was supposed to impregnate her also said to pass her to the brother of her husband. Are you going to practice that should your husband die? Do you advocate others doing it?
God did not say to fill the earth until you destroy it.
Also, I specifically said that I don't think it's a sin for you to have children or to not have children. However, we chose what we did because we are given to be good stewards of the planet, and it's our belief that overpopulating it to the point that we are headed is not being good stewards, or is tempting God.
God did not say to fill the earth until you destroy it.
Also, I specifically said that I don't think it's a sin for you to have children or to not have children. However, we chose what we did because we are given to be good stewards of the planet, and it's our belief that overpopulating it to the point that we are headed is not being good stewards, or is tempting God.
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
Here is an article in baptist press about Mohler and his views:
http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22327
http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22327
Hope of Glory
New Member
You know, he calls it perpetual adolescence. I don't know how many kids that I have to deal with because their parents have not grown up, and many of them have several kids. It's not kids that make you grow up.
Fallacious reasoning.
Fallacious reasoning.
That is way too broad of a concept to have any usable application. We make decisions about our life and actions constantly. When you adopted, why did you not trust God to know what was best for you on how many children you were to have? You modified the number of children that you had. I trust God completely but you and I both know that we have to make choices in all aspects of our life. We decide whether or not to get married, which church to join, where to live, which job to take, etc. We do not just sit back and wait for the outcome and call it trusting God.
Do I really need to explain it?
Your point is based on persona preference, but is not based on scripture. There's no scriptural mandate that requires people to have a certain number of children, or any children at all. </font>[/QUOTE]John, I'm not talking about having a specific number of children or when to have them - those are two other issues that I am not addressing. I'm simply addressing whether or not married couples should have children or not - 1, 2, 5 or whatever.
And it is the scriptural norm that most married couples have children. If we all collectively decided to stop having children, we would be in rebellion against God's command to multiply and fill the earth. And someone is going to be guilty of that disobedience, and it's not going to be the "race" in some generic way, it will be individuals who have individually disobeyed the mandate of having children. There will be a few that have legitimate reasons, but it should only be a few.
It is the scriptural norm for married folk to have kin. That is my position. It is based on Scripture. You may disagree with my interpretation, but please stop your incessant, legalistic whining about other people's positions not being scriptural - you say it all the time to people on this board, and it is getting old. If you disagree with the interpretation, fine, but stop with the pious speak.
That's entirely between the Hunband, the Wife, and the Lord. No one outside of that has any authority to instruct them otherwise.
It is not the scriptural norm. It is the societal norm that scripture records. It is a huge leap to jump from a societal norm recorded in scripture to a scriptural mandate.
Well, since it is obvious that we as a collective have not done so, the point is moot.
Since no one has been able to demonstrate any illegtimate scriptural reasons, the comment doesn't really have a premise.
You've got it backwards. It is not I who is legalistic, it is those whom I address. I say it all the time, because it's true. If you have decided that it's appropriate to have children, then have children. But for you to insist that your standard must be applied to all, it is not I, but you, who is guilty of legalism.
Like I said, I completely support your right to interpret and apply scripture for yourself. I do not support you enforcing that interpretation on all. I can't help but notice how you whine about me not supporting your interpretation, yet you will not grant me (or others) that same privilege.
I've never said the standard applies to ALL. I've consistently said there can be exceptions. Who's trying to enforce? Do I have some kind of authority that I don't know about? I could care less if people agree with me or not. I'm just presenting my interpretation. You say that Scriptures simply record married folk having kin as if God could care less one way or the other. I happen to disagree.
My problem is with your continued bashing of people that their view is not based on Scripture (you do it all the time in other threads), when in fact the disagreement is merely in the interpretation or application of Scripture.
BTW, it is just as much legalism to add to the Scripture as it is to minimize it and say that everything is between you and the Lord. For instance, a legalist would say it is o.k. to get an abortion since Scripture doesn't say "Thou shalt not get an abortion." IOW, they do not read the intent merely the letter. They do not look at Scripture as a whole. They ignore the 6th commandment as it relates to Psalm 139, etc. Such is legalism.
My problem is with your continued bashing of people that their view is not based on Scripture (you do it all the time in other threads), when in fact the disagreement is merely in the interpretation or application of Scripture.
BTW, it is just as much legalism to add to the Scripture as it is to minimize it and say that everything is between you and the Lord. For instance, a legalist would say it is o.k. to get an abortion since Scripture doesn't say "Thou shalt not get an abortion." IOW, they do not read the intent merely the letter. They do not look at Scripture as a whole. They ignore the 6th commandment as it relates to Psalm 139, etc. Such is legalism.
Exactly. Your position is that your standard applies to all, but allows for exceptions. How is that not being legalistic?
No, you don't, which refutes your implication thereby.
Oh, but you do care, otherwise you would agree with me that each is permitted to interpret for themselves.
I do it all the time, because it happens all the time. That's quite abundantly obvious. Legalists need to be called for what they are. You should in the very least note that what I do all the time is tell people I support their sovereign right to interpret for themselves, but not to apply that standard to all. Call it bashing if you want, but should we as Christians be silent about legalism just because it happens a lot?
I do not say everything is between you and the Lord. I say that on this topic, it is between you and the Lord, since a mandate of having children is not a scriptural doctrine.
I fail to see why you're going down this road. I though you didn't have a problem with other people interpreting this issue for themselves. Now it looks like you do indeed have a problem with it.
Actually, to some extent, yes. For the record, I'm flatly against elective abortion. However, if I say that it is life begins at conception as a scriptural absolute, I'd be a legalist. If I said that scripture forbids abortions, I'd be a legalist. However, if I said that taking life is scripturally wrong, and that abortion is wrong because it terminates a fetus (which I believe to be a human life), I'd be right.
In the case of scripture and children, there is no intent present in scripture. Yet you insist there is, and despite your claiming that you aren't trying to enforce this on others, you're sure trying to make a case for why it should be enforced on others.
Apples and oranges. There is no scripture whatsoever that mandates people to have children.
By this statement, you yourself have created a standard - a standard of biblical interpretation. So why are you allowed to apply this standard to the rest of us, but we can't apply our standards that you disagree with?
Your standard of biblical interpretation oulined above is that we are allowed to intepret it for ourselves, but we can't believe our interpretations are true (because if we believe they are true, then we by default are "applying that standard to all"). So answer me this - why do you get to apply your standard of biblical interpretation to the rest of us?