Chosen Childlessness

[Pete Richert]

I have known people who have had children for selfish reasons and people who have not had children for selfish reasons. I hope though, upon realizing their selfishness, they work to remove the selfishness in their lives, not have (or don't have children).

 

[Pete Richert]

This is a strange arguement to have for 10 pages. The vast majority of those who choose not to have children are non-believers. Even Johnv has three kids! Why is Mohler so upset that pagans live like pagans. Most people are pleased with the fact that Christians (rightfully or wrongfully) outbreed the compitition. How else did we get Bush elected

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
How else were Noah's sons to fill the earth if they didn't have children??? God mandated that they have children. You may disagree that it still applies today, but it is a scripture that mandates couples to have children.

I do indeed disagree. It was an invitation to humankind, not a mandate to individuals. It is not a mandate to individuals today. I completely disagree with your intpretation.

So stop bearing false witness that I "have no scripture". I do have scripture, you just disagree with my interpretation/application.

I have already acknowleged that the scripture you supplied can be used to support your interpretation. But that scripture does in and of itself provide a clear mandate as a matter of doctrine. I can and do respect yoru interpretation, but cannot and do not respect any attempt to impose that on all. If you're not imposing that on all, then we have no problem.

You see, it makes a big difference in how the argument is framed. The way you are framing it, you can dismiss it with your standard (that applies to all of us, BTW) and attempt to show the other person is a bald-faced legalist who just invents things contra-Scripture. The more honest way to frame the argument is to simply disagree with your opponent's interpretation.

Oh, come off it. I respect your interpretation, I simply disagree with it. If you say you're not holding it as a standard for all, then I will accept that as being so.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
This is a strange arguement to have for 10 pages. The vast majority of those who choose not to have children are non-believers. Even Johnv has three kids! Why is Mohler so upset that pagans live like pagans. Most people are pleased with the fact that Christians (rightfully or wrongfully) outbreed the compitition. How else did we get Bush elected

I agree that it is more of a problem outside the Church, but it is also a problem within.

Of course, if you are a Postmill, then this all bodes well, since Christians will breed out the non-Christians.

 

[Pete Richert]

Seems just as good for amill and premill as well (albeit we wouldn't care or know it was unsucessful respectivily

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
How else were Noah's sons to fill the earth if they didn't have children??? God mandated that they have children. You may disagree that it still applies today, but it is a scripture that mandates couples to have children.

I do indeed disagree. It was an invitation to humankind, not a mandate to individuals. It is not a mandate to individuals today. I completely disagree with your intpretation.

So stop bearing false witness that I "have no scripture". I do have scripture, you just disagree with my interpretation/application.

I have already acknowleged that the scripture you supplied can be used to support your interpretation. But that scripture does in and of itself provide a clear mandate as a matter of doctrine. I can and do respect yoru interpretation, but cannot and do not respect any attempt to impose that on all. If you're not imposing that on all, then we have no problem.

You see, it makes a big difference in how the argument is framed. The way you are framing it, you can dismiss it with your standard (that applies to all of us, BTW) and attempt to show the other person is a bald-faced legalist who just invents things contra-Scripture. The more honest way to frame the argument is to simply disagree with your opponent's interpretation.

Oh, come off it. I respect your interpretation, I simply disagree with it. If you say you're not holding it as a standard for all, then I will accept that as being so. </font>[/QUOTE]I think we are at a disconnect here - if I wanted "impose it on all", how would that look? I can't escape the fact that I think something is true (in this case, my interpretation of be fruitful and multiply) but at the same time think that it is not true for everyone. I'm not a relativist. Are you? Because frankly you sound like one.

So again, what does "imposing it on all" look like to you? Does merely making a truth claim "impose it on all"? Or is it something more?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
I'm not a relativist. Are you? Because frankly you sound like one.

Permitting individuals to be convinced in their own mind is hardly relativism. In fact, it's biblical. I don't appreciate the accusation of relativism.

So again, what does "imposing it on all" look like to you? Does merely making a truth claim "impose it on all"? Or is it something more?

Your claim is not a truth claim. It's an interpretive claim.

 

[Andy T.]

But I believe my interpretation to be true (otherwise I wouldn't believe it), so it is a truth claim.

You didn't answer the question - what does "imposing it on all" look like to you?

 

[Pete Richert]

Johnv, I don't think you are understanding Andy here. All he is saying that if his intrepretation is true then it is binding on everyone. And he has every right to present his intretation and try to teach it.

We all agree (hopefully), that the Bible teaches that to be saved you must believe on Jesus Christ. That is an interpretation of the text. If our intrepeation is wrong, then someone might be saved some other way. If it is true, it doesn't matter if not the non-believer agrees with us or not, he is not saved!

Andy has simply tried to express what he believes the Bible to teach for the better of all of us. I disagree with him, just as you do, but I am glad he is making an effort to help us. I in turn, would try to convince him or anyone else if I believed they lived in sin supported by clear biblical teachings.

BTW, I hope your not offended by anything I write here. All things considered, you are one of my favorite BB posters.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
But I believe my interpretation to be true (otherwise I wouldn't believe it), so it is a truth claim.

It is not a truth issue. It's a conviction issue. This is not a doctrinal issue. Not at all. Scripture permits every individual the privilege of being individually convinced about such things.

You didn't answer the question - what does "imposing it on all" look like to you?

Imposing an interpretation as truth. You've already said that if it's scriptural truth, then all must believe it.

 

[Andy T.]

I'm perplexed how one can avoid having an intepretation also be a truth claim. If you hold an intepretation, you must believe it, and if you believe it, you must believe it is true. Do you not agree? "Imposing an interpretation as truth" reads to me as rather nonsensical. Maybe you can elaborate.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
All he is saying that if his intrepretation is true then it is binding on everyone. And he has every right to present his intretation and try to teach it.

I don't see an "if" anywhere. But, as I said, I have no problem with an interpretation in and of itself. I have no problem with "this is my take on it", or "this is what I belive". I've done that many times, distinguishing between an interpretation and a clear doctrine.

This isn't a doctrinal issue, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I hope your not offended by anything I write here. All things considered, you are one of my favorite BB posters.

Most asurredly not. Even in the most divisive debates, I don't get offended. I only get offended by the few people who don't engage in healthy and respectful debate or discussion, choosing instead to go after the person instead of the position.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
I'm perplexed how one can avoid having an intepretation also be a truth claim.

Hmmm, let's see: women wearing pants, headcoverings, single-translation-onlyism, evolution/creation/intelligent design, the sabbath day, tithing, eating kosher, premill/postmill/amill, pretrib/postrip, open/closed communion, celebrating christmas/halloween/easter/insert-favorite-day-here.

Need I say more?

If you hold an intepretation, you must believe it, and if you believe it, you must believe it is true.

No, if you hold an interpretation, then you have decided that the interpretation works for you. Again, this is different than doctrine, which is not subject to interpretation.

 

[Pete Richert]

This isn't a doctrinal issue, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Doctrinal as defined as . . . consequencing ones salvation, then no. But I'm confused on your definitions. If I understand your correctly, you are making a distiction of doctrinal and intrepetive on how clear it is. Things that are obvious = doctrine. Things less obvious = intrepretive. I'm not sure that is helpful for several reasons.

Things we consider clear weren't always clear in the Christian Church.

If God commanded something, even if it isn't clearly commanded, it is still sin not to obey it.

I think Christian liberty pertains to things that are not wrong in themselves but may be wrong by means of conscience, lack of faith, or falling into sin. I think simply disagreeing over what is inherently wrong is a matter of realism and peace among ourselves, since we can't agree. Ideally, we could all agree on those things.

Pauls examples were meat offered to idols and Jewish celebrations and sabbaths. Meat was not inherently wrong because, hey, there is no real other god to offer them to. The celebrations were not mandatory because they were a shadow of the reality that is faith in Christ. They had to have meetings about this to sort that out (acts 15). But Paul would not say (in my intrepretive opinion ) that greed, or lust, or stealing, or pride, or any such thing is permitted because we have liberty, they are inherently wrong. In my opinion, alchohol, narnia, video games, etc are not inherently wrong or condemed agaist in scripture. Murder, rape, injustice are, and so would not having children, IF (huge if) it was supported as inherently wrong in scripture.

BTW, for revealing biases on these matters, I am 27 and have two kids.

 

[Andy T.]

Relativism. As I suspected.

Who decides what is doctrine and what is non-doctrine? I mean, even on matter that you and I think are clear, people manage to come up with different interpretations on. In your first list above, many people would classify as doctrine - like premill/postmill and communion. Who decides what is clear and what is not clear?

 

[Pete Richert]

women wearing pants, headcoverings, single-translation-onlyism, evolution/creation/intelligent design, the sabbath day, tithing, eating kosher, premill/postmill/amill, pretrib/postrip, open/closed communion, celebrating christmas/halloween/easter/insert-favorite-day-here.

Johnv,

These are all good examples of what we are argueing over. I'm sure you and I agree that non of these are supported as inherintly wrong in scripture. The oposition will argue that the Bible does in fact outright teach these things (albeit vague). That is are disagreement. Agreeing to disagree is simply our comprimise given the hung jury we land at. It will be sin for us not to follow these things if the Bible does indeed teach it, whether or not we agree that Bible teaches that. In addition, if we are right, it still may be a sin for them if they do not do these things out of faith or with a clear conscience.

 

[Andy T.]

Murder, rape, injustice are, and so would not having children, IF (huge if) it was supported as inherently wrong in scripture.

I would never equate not having children with murder. I've said all along that there can be valid reasons for not having children - health being one.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
Doctrinal as defined as

Teaching of a scriptural absolute. This doesn't qualify. (You note correctly, though, that most doctrines tend to involve a salvific topic or understanding, such as the doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ).

Things that are obvious = doctrine. Things less obvious = intrepretive. I'm not sure that is helpful for several reasons.

I hadn't thought of that, and while I suppose that can serve as a rule of thumb, it's by no means a litmus test.

If God commanded something, even if it isn't clearly commanded, it is still sin not to obey it.

Good point, but not all that God says is what God commands. For example, God says "be still and know I am God". That doesn't mean that if you're not still, you won't know God.

I think Christian liberty pertains to things that are not wrong in themselves but may be wrong by means of conscience, lack of faith, or falling into sin.

No disagreement there.

 

[Pete Richert]

Relativism. As I suspected.

Andy,

I don't think it is edifying or helpful to contiue to label Johnv as relativist, especially after he has taken offense to it. It may be your belief, but it is probably better to drop the label to assist us in moving forward in understanding each other.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
Relativism. As I suspected.

Oh please! No need to start waving the relativism finger at everyone who disagrees with you.

Who decides what is doctrine and what is non-doctrine?

I don't think we are generally divided on doctrinal issues. I can't think of one.

In your first list above, many people would classify as doctrine - like premill/postmill and communion. Who decides what is clear and what is not clear?

What do you think?

I would never equate not having children with murder.

But you would categorically equate it so sin, and that is of concern to me. I can find no scripture that uses the presence or absence of children (or the desire ot attempt to have children) as a litmus test for it being a sin.