Posted on 06/09/2010 7:23:27 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
In "Always a Sin" we saw how Christian teachings (i.e., Catholic) before the Schisms of the Eastern Churches and the Protestant Reformation were opposed to contraception and sterilization and that the Catholic Church maintains this view. In "Where Are We Going and Why Are We In This Hand Basket?" we saw how contraception and sterilization were introduced to the Christian community of the twentieth century by unbelievers desiring to modify social norms.
It's time to look at how Protestant's throughout history have viewed sex deliberately made non- procreative. Let's start at the beginning...
(Note: I owe much credit to the research of Protestant scholar, Charles Provan. In 1989 Mr. Provan published a book, The Bible and Birth Control. Most of his research into historical Protestant views on this subject came from reading commentaries on Genesis 38, in which Onan, who married his deceased brother's wife to fulfill his familial obligation, withdrew from her during intercourse rather than impregnate her. God then killed Onan.)
Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened?
It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.
In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."
The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method.," but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."
By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.
A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.
Even if "overpopulous" were a real word, it would be difficult to define.
The entire continent of Africa has 1 billion inhabitants. It is 3 times the size of China, which has 30% more inhabitants yet has 70% less land.
China is also much wealthier than Africa, despite being much more crowded.Within America itself, some of the most crowded areas are the wealthiest (central New Jersey, southern Connecticut, southern California) while some of the most sparsely populated are the poorest (North Dakota, western Arkansas).
Your thesis doesn't really hold water.
It really comes down to culture more than population density.
As I said, I hope Rome keeps pushing this presumptuous agenda, foolishly equating contraception with a real abomination like abortion.
We Protestants will welcome the thousands of families who leave Rome over this point and who will one day realize God has led them to a sturdier faith.
Individual tax rates would go down because the whole socialist ponzi scheme would have sufficient workers.
Remember that these ‘kids’ would all be 60 and under.
Luther, Calvin, Wesley, all of them condemned contraception.
This isn’t a Catholic issue. This is a modernist/traditionalist argument.
No one will argue your right to self-determination. However, to think that you are in charge of your own destiny is an extreme hubris. No one on this thread has argued for the government to crack down on your bedroom habits... they are discussing right and wrong; God's Way or man's way; selflessness or selfishness. What good is the Church or the Bible if it doesn't impose an obligation on the faithful to be... faithful?
I will answer the question you have missed... "What is the foundation of liberty?" The divine origin of man (according to G.K. Chesterton).
Using that definition, no one has ever possessed liberty, since our bodies are subject to all kinds of infirmities, diseases and physical limitations. Most of our physical reactions are beyond our conscious control.
Moreover, our lives are, from the very beginning, controlled by all sorts of forces beyond our command - our family situation, our innate physical and mental abilities, etc.
Our free will operates only within a certain restricted field that is determined in large part by forces beyond our control.
But even if we possessed this mythical level of control over our bodies and lives - this amount of transcendent power - how would liberty be founded upon it?
Surely a person who was in utter control of his body and life could still use the power that control gave him to deprive others of liberty.
Surely liberty comes from some other foundation than simply power.
Then Onan apparently lived pleasurably ever after in your interpretation.
As I said, I hope Rome keeps pushing this presumptuous agenda, foolishly equating contraception with a real abomination like abortion. We Protestants will welcome the thousands of families who leave Rome over this point and who will one day realize God has led them to a sturdier faith.
Thanks for the entertaining commercial break.
Let's return to your earlier claim: that God decides if and when we have children.
If this is the case, why would one ever use contraception?
If God decides, then no contraception is necessary.
At best it would be a needlessly superstitious practice.
They did not condemn contraception, per se. They condemned certain methods of contraception and they also chastized marriages which intentionally chose not to have children.
**A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.**
Excellent summary!
Bravo for the NON-contracepting couples, both Catholic and Protestant! Contraception KILLS!
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch
Natural Family Planning
Which is it?
Regardless, the old Jewish ritualistic laws have passed away. The New Testament does not forbid contraception.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not surprised Roman Catholics do not understand God's predestination of all things, given they take such pride in their own accomplishments.
God gave me my children. And he also numbered them.
So marriages where a couple intentionally chooses not to have a child are valid?
That is ridiculous. Diaphrams do not kill anyone.
“We’ve been told by RCs on FR that the OT has nothing to teach us and is extraneous to salvation.”
Evidence?
I’d like to see the quote by an RC on FR who said such a thing.
NT is the fulfillment of the Old, not the least stroke of the pen shall be removed from the law.
As Christians realize that population control is directly responsible for our global economic collapse, the Church's teaching on contraception will become one of the central points of Catholic apologetics.
Admit it... you made that up.
Ya ever try to take one out?
Yes, of course they are "valid."
Am I posting with a bunch of priests and nuns tonight whose personal life experiences are slim to none?
I think I’m done with this thread for the night.
Nice to see you posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.