Posted on 10/05/2012 3:22:55 AM PDT by koinonia
From a transcript of Scott Hahn telling his story: We [Kimberly & I] got married right out of college. Both of us had so much of the same vision. We wanted to do ministry together [as Presbyterians], we wanted to share the good news of Christ, we wanted to open up the Bible and make it come alive for people...
We were off to seminary a week or two after our wedding...
[In] a course that Kimberly took her first year... Dr. Davis had all the students break up into small groups so that each small group could tackle one topic... One dinner she announced that she was in a small group devoted to studying contraception. I remember thinking at the time, "Why contraception?"
The year before when I took the class, nobody signed up for that small group and I told her. She said, "Well, three others have signed up for it and we had our first meeting today. So and so appointed himself to be chair of the committee, and he announced the results of our study even before it began. He said, 'Well, we all know as Protestants, as Bible Christians, that contraception is fine, I mean so long as we don't use contraceptives that are abortafacients like the I.U.D. and so on.' He announced further that really the only people who call themselves Christians who oppose artificial birth control are the Catholics, and he said, 'The reason they do, of course, is because they are run by a celibate Pope and lead by celibate priests who don't have to raise the kids but want Catholic parents to raise lots so they can have lots of priests and nuns to draw from, you know.'"
Well, that kind of argumentation did not really impress Kimberly. She said, "Are you sure those are the best arguments they would offer?" And I guess he must have mocked or said, "Well, do you want to look into it yourself?" You don't say that kind of thing to Kimberly. She said, "Yes," and she took an interest in researching this on her own.
So that night at dinner... she said, "I've discovered that up until 1930, every single Protestant denomination without exception opposed contraception on Biblical grounds." Then I said, "Oh come on, maybe it just took us a few centuries to work out the last vestiges of residual Romanism, I don't know." And she said, "Well, I'm going to look into it."
...she handed me a book. It was entitled Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant by John Kippley... I began to read through the book with great interest because in my own personal study, going through the Bible several times, I had come upon this strong conviction that if you want to know God, you have to understand the covenant, because the covenant was the central idea in all of Scripture. So when I picked up this book I was interested to see the word 'covenant' in the title, Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant. I opened it up and I began reading it, and I said, "Wait a second, Kimberly, this guy is a Catholic. You expect me to read a Catholic?" And the thought occurred to me instantly at that moment, What is a Catholic doing putting 'covenant' into his book title? Since when do Catholics hijack my favorite concept?
Well, I began to read the book. I went through two or three chapters and he was beginning to make sense, so I promptly threw the book across my desk. I didn't frankly want him to make any sense. But I picked it up again and read through some more. His arguments made a lot of sense. From the Bible, from the covenant, he showed that the marital act is not just a physical act; it's a spiritual act that God has designed by which the marital covenant is renewed. And in all covenants you have an opportunity to renew the covenant, and the act of covenant renewal is an act or a moment of grace. When you renew a covenant, God releases grace, and grace is life, grace is power, grace is God's own love. Kippley shows how in a marital covenant, God has designed the marital act to show the life-giving power of love. That in the marital covenant the two become one, and God has designed it so that when the two become one, they become so one that nine months later you might just have to give it a name. And that child who is conceived, embodies the oneness that God has made the two through the marital act. This is all the way that God has designed the marital covenant. God said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," and God, who is three in one, made man, male and female, and said, "Be fruitful and multiply." The two shall become one and when the two become one, the one they become is a third child, and then they become three in one. It just began to make a lot of sense, and he went through other arguments as well. By the time I finished the book, I was convinced.
It bothered me just a little that the Roman Catholic Church was the only denomination, the only Church tradition on earth that upheld this age-old Christian teaching rooted in Scripture, because in 1930 the Anglican Church broke from this tradition and began to allow contraception, and shortly thereafter every single mainline denomination on earth practically caved in to the mounting pressure of the sexual revolution. By the 1960's and 70's, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, not only endorsed contraception, but abortion on demand and federal funding for abortion, and that appalled me. And I began to wonder if there wasn't a connection between giving in a little here and then all of a sudden watching the floodgates open later. I thought "No, no, you know the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years; they're bound to get something right." We have a saying in our family that even a blind hog finds an acorn, and so it was, I thought. That was my second year.
Couple infertility is a whole different subject and isn’t relative to the subject of purposeful, artificial contraception.
But when I used a condom in relations with my wife, I was acting just like a homosexual?
Have you read what the Bible says about homosexuality? I don’t think that applies to couples who for whatever reason don’t want a baby to be produced but who still want to show their love to each other.
Humans should make love, not breed. We are not dogs.
I don’t see how this is a response to my previous post saying that couple infertility is a whole different subject.
“Have you read what the Bible says.....?”
I have read—and read-—and read-—and prayed the Bible for many, many years.
That hardly makes me an expert in the Bible and I don’t profess to be one. I have more to learn about the Bible than I have a lifetime left to do it.
What I do know, however, is what I have read-—(and learned from two of the best teachers a person could wish for)-—and prayed and sought for in the Sacred Scriptures is the Truth; because it is Truth that sets us free.
So many times now you have said “we are not dogs”.
Does actually wanting children make us dogs?
Are people with more than one child to be compared to dogs?
Is love-making which becomes child-bearing something that should be compared to dog-breeding?
If a couple does not have the difficulty of infertility-— which is a separate problem-—are they breeding like dogs if they have a desire to have children?
Jesus never married and He Himself taught that there would be disciples who would remain unmarried for the kingdom of Heaven (cfr. Mt 19:12). God bless!
“Dang! ...infertile couples ...bunch of homos!”
There is no comparison between an infertile couple (unless purposely sterilized) and the homosexual act because the infertile couple has the correct intentions and their infertility is not their choice. The homosexual act is a disordered choice.
Perhaps the priests of the Roman "church" Yesterday was an important day: Simchat Torah He came to tabernacle with His people eight days before.The Creator of the Universe married ???
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Is that an example ???
should have followed the example of Origen.
There would not have been so many sex scandals.
The Joy of the WORD - The Circumcision of Yah'shua.
John 1:14 John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and
dwelt (tabernacled) among us, and we saw His glory,
(Shekhinah glory)
glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
I suppose St. Paul being celibate and encouraging others not to marry has no weight? I Cor 7:8, 25-35
BTW celibacy does not produce sex scandals any more than marriage produces adultery. The problem, in both cases (and all other cases of sin), is a lack of correspondence to God's grace. Both the East (Orthodox) and West from apostolic times have always had celibate clergy and consecrated virgins. The Protestants rejected this apostolic tradition which was based on Scripture (see the link).
In talking about married clergy, most people overlook the fact that in the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches the constant tradition has been and remains that once ordained (deacon, priest or Bishop) they cannot marry. In both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches monks and Bishops are celibate. The big difference between the two is that the Orthodox allow a man to marry before his ordination to the deaconate, if he so chooses, but again once ordained a deacon he can never marry again even if his wife dies.
In a word, up to the 15th century the entire Christian tradition was united: after ordination, no marriage; monks and Bishops were always celibates. And the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church have continued this practice. In contrast with the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic discipline admits only celibates to the priesthood. Any man who does not feel called to celibacy should not sign up.
I suppose St. Paul being celibate and encouraging others not to marry has no weight? I Cor 7:8, 25-35
Sha'ul is discussing marriage in Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians. YHvH ended the need for Priests in 70 CE. Yah'shua is now our High Priest. Yah'shua is calling some to be followers in Matthew 4:19.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
He is not performing a treatise on Temple Virgins.
~
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.