Contraception

well said.

 

Very well stated, Jeffrey H ...

PJ

 

Then maybe you could tell me where I stated the number of children that we are told to have? I never said anything about number. Please don't misquote me. I did talk about motive in the use of contraception...and I did question the motives of most (not all) who use such items. I also addressed trust and faith in God to provide for His children. I never said how many you were to have.

 

I also believed the same thing. God would never give us more than we can handle so we are suppose to believe. I wanted to obey God and have faith that He would never give me more of a burden than we could bare.
I have 4 children and we are struggling very hard. We can not afford 4 children. So now I had wished we had taken steps upon our own doing to have what WE could afford. It is not fair to the children. We love each and evey one of them, and we do our best to provide, but our children have NO extras. We JUST get by every week.
So now we take precautions to not bring any more blessings into the world. Not for wordly gain, for sure, but the struggles we have to face on a daily basis just to get by is not worth it.
I want to give my kids more and I can't. I have to look into their sweet faces more often than not and say NO all the time.

If you can afford to have a slew of children and want them, so be it. But I do feel that we should do our best not to bring misery into this world, and I know God does not want to hinder us with debt and He doesn't want us to be hindered in debt, but I sure am because I didn't take it into my own hands.

Now I know it sounds as if I do not have faith in the Lord. I do. And He has provided much for me, and I am tankful that we can just squeek by, but if I have any more, we would be finished!

We should be responsible christians.
About the pill, I do not know how I feel about it. I was on the pill for over a year and then read that it was a form of aborting so I stopped, but how could it be a form of abortion if you never get pregnant?

 

Again the question that pops into mind is "How much is enough?" Here in our affluent, greedy, ego-driven, God-less culture we feel bad because we can't get our kids a new car when they are old enough to drive, new shoes (not payless but those $100 name-brand), a meal at the Outback every night, etc... How much is enough? Is living a simplistic life and doing without all the "toys" really that bad? The only reason my kids know they don't have stuff is because of what the Hell-O-Vision tells them they don't have or the worldly kids at church tell them they don't have because they see it on TV.

I guess if I can't afford to "properly" raise my kids, I can look at my youngest child and tell her I should have "chosen" not to have her! Or look at my oldest and tell her that Daddy can't send her to Harvard and that he is sorry that he even had other children. Oh yes, look at all the extra time I would have to do what I want to do. More money also. I would not have to do with my play things just so my kids can some things. NO, I love all my kids. I believe they would rather be "poor" and have a chance to live, than not even alive at all. I am just going to trust God. Enough said.

 

Wow. You keep riding that same horse about enough being enough, and nobody's said a kid has to have fancy stuff. I myself answered TWICE on what is enough, yet you keep asking and using it as a point.
Chance to live?
Now you're just being ridiculous. Unless you believe that souls are waiting for bodies, a mormon belief, not having more kids isn't denying anyone a "chance" at life.
Enough said here too. You're not even being rational anymore.
I'm sure you love your kids, and that's great. Obviously you've been blessed, and have been able to provide for them too. That's also great, I'm happy for you and your family and that you realize material possessions aren't all that important.
Just please don't continue to try to put your standard of unlimited children onto everyone and respect that it is your standard, and not a requirement of scripture.

 

There's the rub. Who said trusting God in the area of reproduction leads to unlimited children? Your response is the assumption every advocate of birth control makes. But it is a wrong assumption. God is still sovereign, and not practicing birth control does not automatically lead to "unlimited" children.

Psalm 139

 

Thanks Jeff for your acceptance of what I and Jenson are saying.

I would also add that I'm not against the use of some forms of birth control per se. I am concerned, however, about the attitudes that many Christians have adopted that leads to the use of birth control.

I'm 43 and my wife is 44 and we have 8 wonderful children. But I'm really tired of changing diapers, etc. It's not selfish, it's simply a fact! If God were to bless us with another child we would accept that and know that God has a bigger plan or different plan for us than we might think. We do use a barrier method at this time in our marriage. We don't think we are doing anything wrong. But if my wife became pregnant, we wouldn't point fingers at each other or become upset. We would smile and get ready to change more diapers!

 

I realize I'm asking this question a little late in this thread but I am curious. What methods of birth control did Luther and Calvin oppose back in the early to mid 1500's. The rhythm method? They didn't need to waste their time on a method that is so unreliable.

 

Actually I have to disagree with the second part of your statement.

While Contraception is never condemned in the Bible, and those who disagree with its use have developed complicated principles from several agregated passages that have little or no relationship to the topic at hand, abstinence in marriage for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is clearly condemned, and is IMHO clearly in opposition to the teachings of Paul, and the OT Law. I would feel more comfortable Biblically with using contraception than using abstinence to avoid pregnancy. When you get away from all the raw emotionalism and read the Word things are much easier to understand.

Contraception is used for a number of different reasons, probably almost as many reasons as there are people using it. The Broad Brush approach where they are all not trusting God just doesn't cut it. My two children are just as much a blessing and inheritance from the Lord as my friends that have 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,or 10. Not to mention the fact that the blessings of children in the scriptures are almost all tied to the OT economy that revolved around the Land. The context is a little tricky to use that as a command to have as many as you can.

Relying on God's blessing and provision and NOT planning or preparing is also in direct contrast to the wisdom of the scriptures. I could make as strong a biblical case, probably stronger than the one being made here against contraception that having 20 children without being prepared to provide for their needs is not good stewardship of the blessings that God has given you. This issue is one that I think is one that must be made by the individuals involved in the situation, and not by those who would make blanket statements that do not apply in every case, and cannot be supported from the scriptures if you use proper interpetive techniques.

 

So if a wife happens to not "want to" say, on day 15 of her cycle, she is sinning?

 

There's the rub. Who said trusting God in the area of reproduction leads to unlimited children? Your response is the assumption every advocate of birth control makes. But it is a wrong assumption. God is still sovereign, and not practicing birth control does not automatically lead to "unlimited" children.

Psalm 139 </font>[/QUOTE]Unless you're limited the number of children you have, it IS unlimited! Unless you have a medical problem.
We had three in less than 3 years and there was no physical reason it wouldn't have continued. I can't imagine what our "limit" would have been without taking some responsibility in the matter.
If you truly believe what you say, we can use birth control and still trust God. If he can limit children when you're not using contraceptives, certainly he can unlimit them when you're using them.

 

After about page 3, I started briefly skimming these posts, so forgive me if this has been covered.

I feel noone is touching on the real issue here which is simply what the Bible commands. If the Bible condemns the use of birth control or more generally encourages as many children as possible, then so be it. Economic matters, or "using your brain", or cultureal changes, or any other detail takes a back seat to God's commands. However, if the Bible does not say one way or another, simply argueing that no planning is the only way to trust God has little merit IMHO.

I know there are many who feel that birth control is condemned in the Bible outright and I respect their stance. I have read their biblical passages and find fault with their intrepretations, and have not yet been pursaded. I don't think the Bible makes mention of this one way or another. But I will periodically continue to address their position for I am open to correction as I grow spiritually in the faith and trust in the One Who Is more and more.

As for the original statement about the history of protastant churches, that is of course a background issue. What you should say is, how can we find fault with the ananymous intrepretation of the Scriptures by so many Christians (since ultimatly, it is the Scriptures that are our sole authority of faith and practice). And that is a good point. We should tread very lightly if we find ourselves at odds with 1900 years of Christian understanding of the Bible. But still, we must go to the Bible and prove it ourselves. Yes, I (unlike most here) have an enormous respect for John Calvin and Martin Luther. But obviously, because I am a Baptist, I take fault with their padeobaptist position, and believe me, they took a very strong opposition to our position. Likewise, most on this board are at odds with their unapologetic calvinism (indeed, its named after the man!). Furthermore, if the simple reasoning is applied that we can't go agaist the history of intrepretation, the reformation would have never been, for that is exactly what they told Luther (unless you take a landmarkism perspective here

So if we can, let's steer this thread towards the Bible. All such comments about who can afford what kids or not will vary on people's own experience and subjective analysis, and doesn't address at all the issue of what God requires.

 

Originally posted by Paul33

Amen! If God wishes me to have another child I'll trust His judgement.

 

I predict a lot of blank posts if everyone does that.

 

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply,.....

One times one equals one???

 

There's the rub. Who said trusting God in the area of reproduction leads to unlimited children? Your response is the assumption every advocate of birth control makes. But it is a wrong assumption. God is still sovereign, and not practicing birth control does not automatically lead to "unlimited" children.

Psalm 139 </font>[/QUOTE]Unless you're limited the number of children you have, it IS unlimited! Unless you have a medical problem.
We had three in less than 3 years and there was no physical reason it wouldn't have continued. I can't imagine what our "limit" would have been without taking some responsibility in the matter.
If you truly believe what you say, we can use birth control and still trust God. If he can limit children when you're not using contraceptives, certainly he can unlimit them when you're using them. </font>[/QUOTE]In "trusting" God to bless, we also need to "trust" God's method for feeding and caring for babies. Studies have proven that women who breastfeed on demand (that means no pacifiers, bottles, schedules; just baby nursing and being with mom) suppresses ovulation on average for 15 months.

Anecdotal: My wife and I did practice breastfeeding on demand and the family bed (baby sleeps with parents) and my wife's periods were suppressed. Our children are naturally spaced.

So, simply saying that one is trusting God should also include natural "breastfeeding" on demand! Otherwise, a baby every 9-12 months is very hard on a woman's body.

 

That didn't prevent me from having 2 only 15 months apart. Number 2 was less than 6 months old when I KNEW I was pregnant without ever having a cycle and not using any bottles, cereals, pacifiers, etc.