Cutting off a Godly Seed

[chipsgirl]

Originally posted by dh1948:
Is abstinence between a married couple not a form of birth control?

I should have stated that clearer. I meant abstinence before marriage! I'm not married so I tend to think from a singles point of view. I think abstinence in marriage is birth control. If it's God's plan for a couple to have a child then they will and vice versa. If you don't use birth control and you have 5 children or no children, then that's his plan. There are no accidents.

 

[Karen]

I am against abortion. I do think there are good reasons why married couples can use birth control.

All that aside, I am interested in the consensus on this thread and many similar ones that God has a specified number of children in mind for each married couple and that they WILL have this number, no matter what.
All kinds of issues come into play here, including the difference between God's permissive will and His perfect will. Many non-Calvinists display a form of fatalism on this one issue of children. (I am not trying to say Calvinist = fatalism.)

No, I'm not an open theist. Just wondering about our thought process here.

Karen

 

[chipsgirl]

Originally posted by Karen:

All that aside, I am interested in the consensus on this thread and many similar ones that God has a specified number of children in mind for each married couple and that they WILL have this number, no matter what.

That's my reasoning behind my opinion. Thanks for making that clear Karen. I couldn't find the right words!

 

[dianetavegia]

Karen, I can't find the scripture right now but there IS scripture that says David's wife, Michael, refused to have him come in to her after seeing him dancing in the street and she 'missed the moment of her visitation' and remained childless.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by SALTCITYBAPTIST:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
I'm getting married in a few days... .

Are we all invited to the wedding?</font>[/QUOTE]Alas, the location has a maximum capacity of 45 people

 

[rsr]

"As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.

... When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, 'How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!'

David said to Michal, 'It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel - I will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.'

And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

— 2 Samuel 6:16, 20-23, English Standard Version

Nothing about abstinence in that.

In regard to the I Corinthians passage, Paul adds "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

 

[superdave]

1Co 7:2-5 KJV Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

or if you prefer modern English

1Co 7:2-5 ESV But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (3) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (4) For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (5) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul only indicates one reason why you should abstain. In light of this passage, I am not sure you can view abstinence as a biblical method for married couples. There are also some applications of some OT passages regarding one other regular scenario that could be referenced for abstinence, but they are not regarding the avoidance of pregnancy, but are more related to the ritual cleansing laws of the OT.

 

[rsr]

Paul was responding directly to questions from the Corinthians, among whom gnosticism apparently had reared its ugly head, in this case in the despising of sexual relations of all types. (Not a common modern problem, I realize.)

To quote Calvin:

Now it appears, that, notwithstanding the greatly scattered state of the Corinthian Church, they still retained some respect for Paul, inasmuch as they consulted him on doubtful points. What their questions had been is uncertain, except in so far as we may gather them from his reply. This, however, is perfectly well known, that immediately after the first rise of the Church, there crept into it, through Satan's artifice, a superstition of such a kind, that a large proportion of them, through a foolish admiration of celibacy, despised the sacred connection of marriage; nay more, many regarded it with abhorrence, as a profane thing. This contagion had perhaps spread itself among the Corinthians also; or at least there were idly-disposed spirits, who, by immoderately extolling celibacy, endeavored to alienate the minds of the pious from marriage.

... Defraud ye not one the other Profane persons might think that Paul does not act with sufficient modesty in discoursing in this manner as to the intercourse of a husband with his wife; or at least that it was unbecoming the dignity of an Apostle. If, however, we consider the reasons that influenced him, we shall find that he was under the necessity of speaking of these things. In the first place, he knew how much influence a false appearance of sanctity has in beguiling devout minds, as we ourselves know by experience. For Satan dazzles us with an appearance of what is right, that we may be led to imagine that we are polluted by intercourse with our wives, and leaving off our calling, may think of pursuing another kind of life. Farther, he knew how prone every one is to self-love, and devoted to his own gratification. From this it comes, that a husband, having had his desire gratified, treats his wife not merely with neglect, but even with disdain; and there are few that do not sometimes feel this disdain of their wives creep in upon them. It is for these reasons that he treats so carefully of the mutual obligations of the married life. “If at any time it comes into the minds of married persons to desire an unmarried life, as though it were holier, or if they are tempted by irregular desires, let them bear in mind that they are bound by a mutual connection.” The husband is but the one half of his body, and so is it, also, as to the wife. Hence they have not liberty of choice, but must on the contrary restrain themselves with such thoughts as these: “Because the one needed help from the other, the Lord has connected us together, that we may assist each other.” Let each then be helpful to each other’s necessity, and neither of them act as if at his or her own disposal.

Unless by mutual consent He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the question is not as to the continency of one merely, but of two; and besides, he immediately adds two other exceptions. The first is, that it be done only for a time, as perpetual continency is not in their power, lest if they should venture to make an attempt beyond their power, they might fall before Satan’s stratagems. The second is, that they do not abstain from conjugal intercourse, on the ground of that abstinence being in itself a good and holy work, or as if it were the worship of God, but that they may be at leisure for better employments. Now though Paul had taken such pains in guarding this, yet Satan prevailed so far as to drive many to unlawful divorce, from a corrupt desire for an unmarried life. The husband, leaving his wife, fled to the desert, that he might please God better by living as a monk. The wife, against her husband’s will, put on the veil — the badge of celibacy. Meanwhile they did not consider that by violating their marriage engagement they broke the Lord’s covenant, and by loosing the marriage tie, they cast off the Lord’s yoke.

I don't think you can build a case, either way, for abstinence as a form of birth control from this passage.

 

[superdave]

I agree, I would have to say that I stretched that passage rather thin with my application.

The actual point I was making was that I have as much Biblical support for that not being an appropriate form of BC, as those who say that BC in unbibilical.

 

[williemakeit]

I would recommend birth control for a lot of couples; however, my recommendation would be based strictly on personal feelings. God forgive me for these feelings.

 

[mountainrun]

williemakeit--
QUOTE
"The Washington Times also recently ran an article regarding the birthrate in the red states vs. the blue states here in the US. The Northeast (predominately blue states) and the Left Coast (again, blue states) had the lowest birth rates, while the red states (especially in the South) had much higher birth rates. Personally, I believe Christians (especially IFB) should make it part of their Christian walk to abstain from birth control. It definately wouldn't hurt to strengthen our numbers."

It wouldn't help politically due to the electoral college willie.

Better that we add to the Kingdom by evangelism than to the vote count by reproduction.

MR

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by mountainrun:
williemakeit--
QUOTE
"The Washington Times also recently ran an article regarding the birthrate in the red states vs. the blue states here in the US. The Northeast (predominately blue states) and the Left Coast (again, blue states) had the lowest birth rates, while the red states (especially in the South) had much higher birth rates. Personally, I believe Christians (especially IFB) should make it part of their Christian walk to abstain from birth control. It definately wouldn't hurt to strengthen our numbers."

It wouldn't help politically due to the electoral college willie.

Better that we add to the Kingdom by evangelism than to the vote count by reproduction.

MR

Yep, agree. I personally am looking forward to the golden state (as in golden streets).

 

[rjprince]

Diane,

I looked for “missed the moment” and could not find anything resembling such. Nor could I find anything in the context (2Sam 6:16-23) to suggest that she refused his amorous advances. It seems from a plain reading of the text that her barrenness was God’s judgement upon her for despising David in her heart (vv. 16, 23). I looked at the parallel passage as well, but found even less detail there (1Chron 15:29). It may be somewhere else, but for now I can only say that your interpretation of her barrenness being the result of refusing David seems to be without warrant.

I now see that RSR has already addressed this as well.


All,

There is no solid Biblical evidence one way or another for or against some type of family planning scheme, whether a barrier method or rhythm or some other method that is not abortifacient. As one of the founders of a local CPC and long time board member here and in another state as well, there are many views on this and many claim to have the only Biblical position on the matter. Again, after many hours of working on this one, there is no clear Biblical statement on the issue.

 

[rjprince]

Oh, and as far as the "fatalism" idea, while I certainly recognize God's sovereignty in the world, we can certainly influence what happens. The idea that you will have how many children God wants you to have is naive. Yet, I may have read it out of context.

If someone gets drunk, wrecks their car, and loses an arm, does that make it God’s will for their life? If someone goes to a party, gets drunk, and get pregnant (yes I know I left out some details there), does that mean it was God’s will for her to have the child of a man she did not even know and perhaps will never know?

When we talk about “God’s will” We need to distinguish between His PLAN and His DESIRE. Jesus prayed, “Father, let this cup pass from me”; yet, we know that He came to die. Did Jesus want to go to the cross or not? Yes, and no. It was His plan to provide atonement. It was not His desire to experience separation from the Father. Think about it. On the cross, the Trinity was literally ripped apart in order to provide for our salvation. Now, that is a pretty weighty thought.

God is the architect of a plan that includes sin and suffering, but I think we could safely say that this suffering was never His desire. Yet, we must also acknowledge that He did include it in His plan. This is something that should be kept in mind whenever discussing “the will of God”.