Research indicates "morning-after" pills are non-abortive

i don’t know. i think this is such a personal topic that it’s hard to write about it. The Catholics have quite extended and thoughtful discussions about it, like in their excellent book by the Kippleys, The Art of Natural Family Planning. They discuss Biblical principles like generosity and prudence in regards to this question.

[Kevin Subra] I simply suggest accepting what God chooses to give as opposed to actively seeking to prevent it.

Well, don’t answer this b/c I’m not looking for personal info, but does not having s`x when a wife is fertile and she doesn’t desire to get pg at that time (for whatever reasons)—does that count as “actively seeking to prevent” children? … . I think it can be a complex question … and it probably should be a complex question because we are humans made in God’s image and not animals living by instinct, for one thing.

[Kevin Subra] Again, it’s not an argument of “as many as possible.” It is an argument of recognizing children as blessings from God (which should then be received) or not blessings from God (curses?). Are children from God? If so, why would we turn them down?

Technically, the Bible doesn’t ever call children blessings, though they are said to be a heritage from God… . . Children are God-given, but so are faith and logic. And when we walk with Him, I think He does influence or control our desires for children.

[Kevin Subra] I argue that, since God gives children, that we should take them as He chooses to give them in the course of life, as the result of intimacy. Also, I’m not sure how else you would put “turn them down,” as that is what conception control is - refusing what God would normally give.

BOLD ADDED
Kevin,

would you make the bolded argument across the board in life? We believe God is sovereign over all things. Do you take the illness that come along without fighting them, since they are sent by God and used by Him (remember Paul’s infirmity)? I am on dialysis for kidney failure. Perhaps I turned down God’s intentions three years ago when I was diagnosed by seeking treatment to prevent my death at that time.

[JG]
Did he actually cite any “classic Protestants” who held that view? Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon, to name three, were unalterably opposed.

Why was it still illegal in at least parts of America, even for married couples, until the mid-twentieth century, if the majority Protestants saw nothing wrong with it? It wasn’t just that people spoke against it as a moral failing, it was actually illegal in Connecticut and other places until 1965.

Your professor may have been citing the “standard” Protestant position that most hold today, but it’s a major stretch to call it the classic position. Provan claims he could find no one before 1900 that accepted it.

No, as undergrads we weren’t in a position to question :D

However, you may be right that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#Protesta…] first generation of Reformers didn’t differ from the Romish position on this issue; nor did they on Perpetual Virginity and other stuff.

Yet the first generation doth not a classic, historical position make.

I think my prof’s argument was that over time, from the 16th century, the Protestant view has diverged from the Romish one on this issue (as it has on several others), which isn’t surprising given our different basis of faith and practice.

[J Ng] I think my prof’s argument was that over time, from the 16th century, the Protestant view has diverged from the Romish one on this issue (as it has on several others), which isn’t surprising given our different basis of faith and practice.

Well, if you haven’t read their literature, catholics don’t actually support the idea of “no family planning.” Like their Couple-to-Couple League and stuff. They do a lot to teach natural family planning, so they are not anti-family-planning. They are just careful about what methods they use/promote. We all should be so thoughtful in this area, too.

A few weeks ago, my pastor preached/taught an overview message on Song of Solomon. Among his points (supported by commentators) was that one implication of the book’s celebration of the physical relationship between man and wife is that relationship may rightly be considered an end in itself and need not always be approached with procreation in view or even as a possibility in any given instance. An inductive conclusion rather than an exegetical one, but interesting (and germane, I hope) nonetheless.

Additionally, since Psalm 127 doesn’t tell us when a quiver is full, I think such a conclusion is a wisdom issue to be solemnly decided by husband and wife based on several principals, including stewardship, etc.

Might not “subduing the earth” include managing one’s own reproduction?

[pvawter] I think we ought to distinguish between children, who do have eternal souls, and an unfertilized egg and sperm, which do not.
Preventing potential fertilization, which is never guaranteed, is not the same as destroying the fertilized ovum. Taking steps to minimize the likelihood of the egg and sperm ever meeting does not constitute the rejection of a blessed child from God.

I cannot follow your logic. Why would you seek to prevent (reject) the “meeting” of the egg and sperm if not to prevent the conception of a child? What other reason would there be? If God, from the very beginning, makes a male and a female (their distinctions are primarily reproductive), and commands them to be fruitful and multiply via the mechanism (and blessing) of intimacy, why would we work to prevent what God has designed to happen as normal result of this? If it is a good thing (“and God blessed them and said,…”), I still go back to my original post and ask why we are so bent on keeping that from happening?

[Anne Sokol] i don’t know. i think this is such a personal topic that it’s hard to write about it. The Catholics have quite extended and thoughtful discussions about it, like in their excellent book by the Kippleys, The Art of Natural Family Planning. They discuss Biblical principles like generosity and prudence in regards to this question.

I would have to disagree. The very first chapter of the Bible addresses this (!). It is the “elephant in the room” that everyone ignores. The Bible does indicate that marriage IS primarily for raising families (homos*exual marriage is justified if marriage just for friendship and companionship). The very premise of male/female IS to produce and raise children (as a normal part of life). The whole conception issue is the forgotten doctrine which affects our understanding of marriage, gender, gender roles, and which affects how we “do” church, work, and government.

[Anne Sokol]

[Kevin Subra] I simply suggest accepting what God chooses to give as opposed to actively seeking to prevent it.

Well, don’t answer this b/c I’m not looking for personal info, but does not having s`x when a wife is fertile and she doesn’t desire to get pg at that time (for whatever reasons)—does that count as “actively seeking to prevent” children? … . I think it can be a complex question … and it probably should be a complex question because we are humans made in God’s image and not animals living by instinct, for one thing.

I would say that the Bible does not give “not wanting to be pg” as a reason not to be intimate or a reason not to have children. That’s why I believe God’s hand in this is the key - we can trust God to make better decisions than we can. I don’t think it is a complex question (dictated by our reasons, excuses, circumstances, culture, etc.). I think it is a theological one, and one that the Bible addresses rather clearly and matter-of-factly.

[Anne Sokol]

[Kevin Subra] Again, it’s not an argument of “as many as possible.” It is an argument of recognizing children as blessings from God (which should then be received) or not blessings from God (curses?). Are children from God? If so, why would we turn them down?

Technically, the Bible doesn’t ever call children blessings, though they are said to be a heritage from God… . .

The ability and responsibility to be fruitful is a blessing (Gen 1:28). The promise of having many children is seen as a blessing in many passages throughout the Bible (Gen 17:16,20; 22:17, for a few examples). The promise of God to people that they would have many children was seen as something good and beneficial (a blessing), not something to prevent and be feared.

As you mention in your reply, many children (in one family) are seen as a good thing (a heritage, which is usually determined by the giver, not the receiver) in Psalm 127. Also, in Psalm 128, the godly man is considered to be blessed if his wife is fruitful with children “all around” his table (Ps 128:3-4). I’m not sure what it takes to identify children as a blessing if these don’t, but I think the idea is clear conceptually throughout Scripture nonetheless. (Are you arguing that children are NOT blessings from God?)

God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5 assumes God’s allowing Abraham’s descendents to bear many children, and also assumes God’s hand in that (direct involvement) to fulfill such a promise. (By the way, Abraham’s faith, the content of God’s promise, was directly related to God’s promise regarding promised prolific conception.)

[Anne Sokol] Children are God-given, but so are faith and logic. And when we walk with Him, I think He does influence or control our desires for children.

Is not our faith based upon the revelation of God (not our own judgment)? Is not our logic flawed with a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9), and only corrected through the revelation of God (Prov 3:5-6)? I think neither can trump the revelation of God, or bypass it.

The Bible doe not discuss this “faith and logic” view of conception (control), which is interesting. It seems to rest our faith on God’s giving, rather than our determining. It does bring up some interesting ideas regarding the involvement of God in conception. Here are a few:

• Gen 3:1 - 1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”
  
• Gen 30:1-2 - Now when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and said to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die!” And Jacob’s anger was aroused against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”
  
• Ruth 4:13 - So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son.
  

I would echo someone else’s post here. The Bible’s overriding theme regarding children is that they are gifts from God to be expected and received as normal result of marital intimacy as God chooses. There is no theme of preventing for based upon our faith, our logic, or our stewardship.

In the end, my point still remains, that we seek to prevent, rather than receive, God’s gifts of children, which is foreign to Scripture, and in contrast to God’s creative design.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Kevin Subra] I argue that, since God gives children, that we should take them as He chooses to give them in the course of life, as the result of intimacy. Also, I’m not sure how else you would put “turn them down,” as that is what conception control is - refusing what God would normally give.

BOLD ADDED
Kevin,

would you make the bolded argument across the board in life? We believe God is sovereign over all things. Do you take the illness that come along without fighting them, since they are sent by God and used by Him (remember Paul’s infirmity)? I am on dialysis for kidney failure. Perhaps I turned down God’s intentions three years ago when I was diagnosed by seeking treatment to prevent my death at that time.

Good question, Chip. This concept of medical treatment comes up often in the discussion of conception, but usually in a hypothetical realm. I first want say that I have first paused and prayed for God’s grace, strength, and provision for you in your dialysis. May God continue to grow you close to him.

To respond to your question, I do not think that this is comparing apples to apples. My comments need to be taken in the context in which they are presented. Preventing life and preventing death are two separate issues, and are covered under different commands and principles. Treatment of a disease (or a result of a disease) is not the same as preventing pregnancy (which is NOT a disease). Seeking to prevent what God would give as far as conception goes is not in the same category as seeking medical assistance to heal or repair.

I am glad you are on dialysis. I am glad you are alive. I am glad we can have this discussion.

May God’s strength uphold you, Chip.

[DavidO] A few weeks ago, my pastor preached/taught an overview message on Song of Solomon. Among his points (supported by commentators) was that one implication of the book’s celebration of the physical relationship between man and wife is that relationship may rightly be considered an end in itself and need not always be approached with procreation in view or even as a possibility in any given instance. An inductive conclusion rather than an exegetical one, but interesting (and germane, I hope) nonetheless.

I would say that there is no indication in Scripture that the physical relationship requires conception, but equally the physical relationship is designed primarily to be reproductive (Gen 1:28). The purpose of the physical relationship is not replace by the pleasure of the physical relationship. It is simply enhanced by it. Whether the possibility exists (fertility), the purpose and command is to allow it to result in conception, rather than taking steps to prevent it. The latter is foreign to Scripture. (I would argue that our abandonment of the primary purpose in marriage is the reason why the same-s*x marriage issue exists, and the gender confusion is rampant. Reject the blessing of many children in marriage - if God gives them - and this is what results. Cultural confusion, church confusion, etc.)

[DavidO] Additionally, since Psalm 127 doesn’t tell us when a quiver is full, I think such a conclusion is a wisdom issue to be solemnly decided by husband and wife based on several principals, including stewardship, etc.

I hear this often. However, the quiver IS presented in the context of a warrior (“as arrows are in the hand of a warrior” NKJV). I doubt of a warrior would be heading to battle with 1 or 2 arrows! I’m not sure about you, but if I’m a warrior with arrows going into war, I’d just as soon pack that quiver full. The more arrows (children), the more impact on the enemies in the gate (Ps 127:4). It does not hint at “stewardship” at all, unless it is having many. :>D

[DavidO] Might not “subduing the earth” include managing one’s own reproduction?

I think it requires the opposite. It takes “being fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth” to have dominion over the earth and to be able to subdue it. “Managing one’s own reproduction” is a concept foreign to Scripture.

I guess the arguments boil down somewhat to the question of whether we’re permitted to enjoy things that don’t fulfill their “primary function,” whether it be procreation or nourishment or house raising.

Some among us have no qualms about using their God-given ivories to chew and suck upon calorie-free gum, which gives little if any nourishment to the body.

Yet is it at all possible to enjoy the taste (dare I say, artificially flavoured) per se to the glory of God?

And, for those able to make a further connection, is it possible to enjoy sexual intimacy and/or its physical pleasures per se to the glory of God without its “primary function” of procreation?

I think that it goes without saying that we can enjoy sexual intimacy without producing children. Most such pleasure doesn’t produce children. The question is whether we should seek to enjoy such pleasures rejecting the primary purpose by actively seeking to prevent what God intends to be the designed outcome. How can we glorify God and seek to circumvent His design? It would be akin to sitting in your car without going anywhere. You can enjoy sitting there, but it certainly misses the point. I still look, too, for clear Biblical justification to depart from God’s design without undermining marriage and gender altogether (with the logical conclusions which follow such a view).

And there is nothing artificial about God’s design, so the analogy doesn’t really work. (I won’t get into the benefits of chewing gum, etc.)

[Kevin Subra] I think that it goes without saying that we can enjoy sexual intimacy without producing children. Most such pleasure doesn’t produce children. The question is whether we should seek to enjoy such pleasures rejecting the primary purpose by actively seeking to prevent what God intends to be the designed outcome. How can we glorify God and seek to circumvent His design? It would be akin to sitting in your car without going anywhere. You can enjoy sitting there, but it certainly misses the point.

Actually, that’s an excellent illustration—I should’ve thought of it!

There have been summer afternoons when I’ve enjoyed sitting behind the tinted windows of my minivan to simply chill by myself all quiet and all—going nowhere.

Is it at all possible I might have glorified the Lord while departing from Toyota’s design altogether?

I mean, if we change the illustration to something other than the combative issue of contraception, could we get closer to an understanding of Christian liberty?

[J Ng] Actually, that’s an excellent illustration—I should’ve thought of it!

There have been summer afternoons when I’ve enjoyed sitting behind the tinted windows of my minivan to simply chill by myself all quiet and all—going nowhere.

Is it at all possible I might have glorified the Lord while departing from Toyota’s design altogether?

I mean, if we change the illustration to something other than the combative issue of contraception, could we get closer to an understanding of Christian liberty?

God and the Toyota designer are different. Toyota probably doesn’t care how you use their vehicles, as long as you buy them. I would suggest, though, that my the illustration still stands - you can derive pleasure from your car, but you wouldn’t buy your car just to stay cool. Your primary purpose is to use it for transportation, and sitting in it doesn’t violate or remove that purpose, or reject that purpose. The illustration would probably be more real if you removed the wheels and axles… ;>D

Now if God gave us cars to drive, and we sat in them just to stay cool, you’d hit it on the button.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think—if all of life, including its intimate details, is in some way corporate worship and testimony (Eph. 3)—the question of Regulative vs the Normative Principle comes into play here?

[Kevin Subra]

[pvawter] I think we ought to distinguish between children, who do have eternal souls, and an unfertilized egg and sperm, which do not.
Preventing potential fertilization, which is never guaranteed, is not the same as destroying the fertilized ovum. Taking steps to minimize the likelihood of the egg and sperm ever meeting does not constitute the rejection of a blessed child from God.

I cannot follow your logic. Why would you seek to prevent (reject) the “meeting” of the egg and sperm if not to prevent the conception of a child? What other reason would there be? If God, from the very beginning, makes a male and a female (their distinctions are primarily reproductive), and commands them to be fruitful and multiply via the mechanism (and blessing) of intimacy, why would we work to prevent what God has designed to happen as normal result of this? If it is a good thing (“and God blessed them and said,…”), I still go back to my original post and ask why we are so bent on keeping that from happening?

You were arguing that there is a fundamental difference between children and diet coke, and that is certainly true. The flaw in your argument is that having sexual intimacy which doesn’t lead to conception has nothing to do with rejecting a child from God. If there is no conception there is no child, so the analogy of eating or drinking for pleasure’s sake is valid.
The prohibition of birth control on the grounds that it is tantamount to rejecting a gift from God only applies if said birth control actually destroys a child in the womb, i.e. an abortificant.