Contraception

[ccrobinson]

Here is an Early Church Father is often quoted in Seminaries.

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).

"n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391).

I see. Since you have no Scriptural basis for your arguments against contraception, you're going to trot out a so-called church father. If you can rip Scripture out of context to support your argument, how can you be trusted not to have done the same thing with Mr. Chrysostom's words?

In the first paragraph, you added the parenthetical phrase, oral contraceptive, to try to convince us that that's what he's talking, but was it? They had oral contraceptives in AD 391?

In the second paragraph, you would have us believe that not allowing conception is akin to murder. Bullfeathers. Last I heard, murder was taking the life of someone already living. You can't kill somebody who was never alive in the first place.

In the third paragraph, it appears that this gentleman was possibly talking about castration. You would make a comparison between contraception and castration? Silly nonsense.

All I can do is show you the truth.

Sad to say that you haven't shown much truth in this thread.

 

[tamborine lady]

:type:

Hey Mo,

Your logic is flawed to the point of being funny. Consider this scripture:

1 Tim 5-8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


So you advocate just to keep on having children because God said go be fruitful and multiply, but this scripture says, if you can't/won't take care of your own family God doesn't like that either

So what if you have so many kids that your family has to go on welfare, and food stamps and still can't feed all your kids and you have no insurance? The wife gets to the point where she can't stand it and leaves etc.

Your beautiful lofty ideas are great in theory, but God knows we live in the real world.

Yes God will provide, but why is it that sometimes, even though people are Christians and believe the word with all their heart, that the whole family suffers because there are so many kids and not enough of everything else.

Please ask your "God" what those people are supposed to do!

Selah,

Tam

So I see that you can't anawer questions Mo, so you just continue to post trash instead of scripture.

Sad. Very sad.

Tam

 

[tamborine lady]

contaception

:type:

Mo,

It says on your profile that you are considering leaving the Baptist church. What are you planning to become?

Tam

I see you didn't answer this one either Mo!!

Stop hiding behind the "church fathers" and come on out and play!!!

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[mojoala]

I see you didn't answer this one either Mo!!

Stop hiding behind the "church fathers" and come on out and play!!!

Working for Jesus,

Tam

I have answered that question twice already. Please read all of my comments on this post.

 

[mojoala]

Three more from the Early Church Fathers.

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers…‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]…On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 (A.D. 395).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]." Jerome, Letters 22:13 (A.D. 396).

Hiding? I say not. Those that wrote in the first quarter of Christianity were far more intelligent and far more acquainted with the language and beliefs of the Middle East.

 

[mojoala]

1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

No conflict at all.

"Provide Not" means to not provide at all.

God expects us to make an attempt and never give up. Not all are going to succeed. Dead-beat Dads give up and stop providing.

God will not damn those that continue to make an attempt to provide. If failure happens then it is the will of God. If God does not provide now he will provided in the next life provided one keeps believing.

God makes no promises that everyone will be able to feed and clothed every child a family bears. God calls us to suffer with him. A life without suffering is a life of Satan given pleasure.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

 

[BD17]

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers…‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]…On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 (A.D. 395).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]." Jerome, Letters 22:13 (A.D. 396).

Hiding? I say not. Those that wrote in the first quarter of Christianity were far more intelligent and far more acquainted with the language and beliefs of the Middle East.

How about the Song of Solomon mojoala, the sex between Solomon and His wife was not solely for procreation. That whole book is about how to have sex with your wife in a loving and respectful manner.

I love you use things so out of context. Like Onan in Gen. he was killed for disobedience, you say it was not, but his spilling the seed was a CONTINUAL disobedience. That is why he was killed

 

[Eric B]

If failure happens then it is the will of God. If God does not provide now he will provided in the next life provided one keeps believing.

God makes no promises that everyone will be able to feed and clothed every child a family bears. God calls us to suffer with him. A life without suffering is a life of Satan given pleasure.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

Now that's fatalism, and just like some evangelical teachers, and people of a more Puritanical mindset (the Calvinist notion of "Providence"), it turns suffering from it's original context in the NT (persecution for Christ) into some burden we are supposed to impose on ourselves, or accept from "life" if we are not in the right circumstance at the right time. And then tries to use "the next life" as a cop-out. (and there isn't even any assurance of that, apparently). Sorry, but that is no reason to go and have a whole house full of children you can't take care of.
(and "poor in spirit" does not mean physically poor!)

 

[Paul33]

The statements and list of Scriptures are not necessarily proof texting.

I think mojo has given a compelling argument for why contraception may be a sin.

What I find in most of these discussions is a quick dismissal of the pertinent Scripture.

That's too bad. Maybe mojo has overstated the case. But is their a "case?"

Why, for example, did all "Christian" denominations consider contraception a sin until the 1930s? What changed? Are you so sure of your position for contraception that you can dismiss 1900 years of church history?

Maybe the church got it wrong, but this fact alone should give us pause.

If the overwhelming evidence of the OT is that children are a blessing, what causes us to limit the "blessings" God may want to give to us? At the very least, this ought to give us pause.

Are you sure your position for contraception lines up with God's general desire for you as a believing couple?

What I'm trying to get across is merely this. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss mojo's message. His general interpretation may not be right, but what if it is?

The problem I have with most people who are for contraception is how little thought went into their arriving at that position. It is the default position, and in most cases, no thought has gone into arriving at that position.

I would like to encourage those of you who are against mojo's interpretation to at least consider if there might not be some truth to it.

Why do most Christians practice contraception? Is it to bring glory to God? Is it thought out? Is it selfless? Does it reflect a growing trust in God? Does it reveal faith? Or does it reflect our own wisdom, desires, and goals?

It is worth pondering.

Hmmm.

 

[mojoala]

Thank you Paul for an objective look at what I posted.

 

[mojoala]

This will be my last comment on this subject:

Here is the last of commentary by the Early Church Fathers.

His name is Augustine. He is also very much quoted in seminaries and schools of Theology.


"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7 (A.D. 400).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny." Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage…to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]…[T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God…by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." Augustine, The Good of Marriage 11–12 (A.D. 401).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).

God Bless and do God's will.

 

[tamborine lady]

:type:

Mojo,

If you can't repeat yourself once in a while, then I can't be bothered to go digging through all your posts to find your answer.

Peace,

Tam

 

[menageriekeeper]

Mojo, the "early" church father's were wrong when they equated sexual satisfaction in marriage with lust. the word early is in quotes because this is not what Paul and the rest of the apostles were talking about.

Let's start in the beginning, because the premise of the quotes you have presented is that God gave us sex for procreation alone.

Well lets just see about that:

Ge 2:20And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

Ge 2:21And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:

Ge 2:22and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Ge 2:23And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Ge 2:24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ge 2:25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Now, where in this passage that describes the very creation of the union of man and wife, does it say that this union was for procreation alone? No, marriage was created to provide a man with a help meet. A partner. Someone who would complete the parts of him that he couldn't complete for himself, someone who could fulfill the urges that God created in him. Children weren't even thought about until after the fall.

Now lets look at the NT:

1co 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.1co 7:2But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.1co 7:3Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.1co 7:4The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.1co 7:5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.

Where here in this very description of why a man and woman should marry does it even mention that sex should be for procreation alone?

It doesn't! It says to marry to keep from fornication, because:

Heb 13:4[Let] marriage [be] had in honor among all, and [let] the bed [be] undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

No where in scripture are we told that sex in marriage is only for procreation! That is the idea of mere man! Sex in marriage is clearly taught to be for the fulfillment of the urges of both husband and wife, toward each other to keep them from sin. Sin would be fulfiling those urges with someone outside the marriage covenant.

Why do false beliefs such as this persist for years on end. Because Satan is a deciever and seeks to decieve even the "elect". Who are the elect? Us Christians!

Mojo, you must study the SCRIPTURES first! Then you can look at what opinions man has thought up. But our foundation is not built on what man says but what God has said. You build on anything but scripture and your doctrinal house will surely come tumbling down when you least expect it.

Now I have one more direct question for you. I've asked it before and you ignored me.

Who's opinion holds the most authority: God's or man's?

 

[mojoala]

:type:

Mojo,

If you can't repeat yourself once in a while, then I can't be bothered to go digging through all your posts to find your answer.

Peace,

Tam

Search for my comment here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30622

also my new one "John W. Giles and his influence on Mojoala"

 

[Eric B]

Augustine is really the last person one should consult on sexual matters. He is the one who greatly shaped the dark ages view of sex (and the physical body itself) as evil, and even when done for procreation, it was "looked upon with suspicion". As much as everyone tries to blame the Enlightenment/Renaissance, the Age of Reason, or the changing mores of the 20th century (30', 60's or whenever), it was this dar ages monasic/ascetic teaching that led to the sexual revolution more than anything else.

He himself apparently lived a wild life before conversion, and then brough all of that baggage in and projected it in his teachings. But you cannot tame man's sin through guilt, shame or fear. Any "social mores" created that way are illusory, and will fall apart eventually. We can see this in that most Catholics today do whatever they want, and only ask that the Church change the rules. So modern Protestantism is not the problem.

 

[Paul33]

MK,

You are right. The Scriptures, both OT and NT affirm sexual activity in marriage as holy, as a gift from God.

I think MOJO's point in quoting Augustine is not his views on marital sex but his views on contraception. Granted, the two often go hand in hand, but one point we can take from Augustine is that he (as well as the other church fathers) viewed contraception as a sin.

This is the position of the early church fathers, and it was the position of all Christian denominations until the 1930s.

Something has changed since then. It started with eugenics on one side, and Margaret Sanger's desire to be freed from "motherhood" on the other side. The two streams eventually merged.

Eugenics wanted the best people to procreate while hoping the less fit would stop having children. Sanger just didn't want to be bothered. She wanted free sex without the consequences.

Today, Christian couples have bought into the same mode of thinking. They want children, just not too many. They want the "good life." That means limiting one's family size in order to afford material things and/or careers.

Blessings.

 

[menageriekeeper]

This is the position of the early church fathers, and it was the position of all Christian denominations until the 1930s.

Something has changed since then. It started with eugenics on one side, and Margaret Sanger's desire to be freed from "motherhood" on the other side. The two streams eventually merged.

Actually Paul, I don't think it is quite that complicated. Until the 20th century we didn't have the technology to effectively prevent pregnancy without putting a damper on sexual activity. In other words, it wasn't worth the arguement since birth control was effectively impossible anyway.

As far as all denominations believing that bc was a sin, they also didn't believe in women voting, and a host of other things which are mostly cultural rather than spiritual in nature.

 

[Paul33]

That's just not true.

Birth control, herbal remedies, etc. have been around for thousands of years.

It was illegal in the United States to market birth control methods in the 1800s - 1900s. That's right.

Eugenics and Margaret Sanger had a huge influence in promoting birth control to the masses.

The eugenicists were upset that the wrong people were using birth control. They wanted the rich to have a lot of kids. Instead, the rich used birth control to limit their family size.

 

[ccrobinson]

Today, Christian couples have bought into the same mode of thinking. They want children, just not too many. They want the "good life." That means limiting one's family size in order to afford material things and/or careers.

So, you have the ability to see into the hearts of Christian couples to know this?

 

[Paul33]

Perhaps you might want to consider what you post before posting.

If you have nothing of substance to contribute, why flame?

You know very well that Christian couples think and act just like their counterparts in the world when it comes to how they view children, pregnancy, and birth control.