Bobby, i will respond to this as time permits. i too think it would be good if you changed your mind. :) On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Fellas, > > I know that all of you value God's word and believe that it should be > treated with care and applied with caution. This is why I propose > that we talk more about the controversial topic of birth control and > the Bible. > > Most of you disagree with me on this topic, so I want to shift the > focus off of me and onto a legitimate and real debate that is > transpiring the Evangelical world today. Maybe if we sift through the > arguments, we can come to agreement on this topic. I know that you > all want harmony and peace between us, both interpersonally and in > terms of our Biblical interpretation. Perhaps through some hard > thinking and honest discussion, we can come to agreement, even if it > means my changing my mind. First, I want to propose that this is a > topic worthy of our interest. Very good Biblical commentators agree > with the position that birth control is not okay according to the > Bible. It's not just Catholics, but also well known -- indeed, famous > -- Protestant reformers interpret Genesis 38:8-10 this way. And as > we'll see from the Bayly sermon below, there are actually three > scriptural lines of argument against Birth Control, although the > following is the most notorius for "proving" the point: > > "Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform > the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your > brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So > whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on > the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he > did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death > also." > > Says John Calvin: > > "I will content myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the > sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour > out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately > avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is > doubly 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 was thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as > much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. > When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through > aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was > guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so > that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor" (Commentary on > Genesis). > > How good and careful was John Calvin in interpreting Scripture? > Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, after whom the anti-Calvinistic > movement Arminianism was named, says with regard to the value of > Calvin's writings: > > "Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I > exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in > loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551–1608); for I > affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of > Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued > than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so > that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather > above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. > His Institutes ought to be studied after the (Heidelberg) Catechism, > as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the > writings of all men." > > I like it that Arminius included the last part, "but with > discrimination, like the writings of all men." We shouldn't take > Calvin's word as the last word on this topic, but just whose word > should we take? Our own? An authority on Scripture in today's > world? > > One theologian I trust who disagrees with me is John Piper. Here is > his stance on the issue: > http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/45/1440_Does_the_Bible_permit_birth_control > > . > His writings on this topic are definitely worth reading, and I will > read them. But the deal I want to make with you all is this: If I > read Piper's stance on this issue with care and take it seriously, I > ask you to take the Calvinist stance on this issue seriously too. Is > that a deal? So participating further in this discussion means that > we will engage each other after "seeing it from the other person's > point of view." I will carefully read the Piper selection. And > whomever wants to engage this issue further can read the Bayly sermon > below: > > For more on the "Bayly line" see > http://www.christtheword.com/Genesis%2038-1-11%20The%20Sin%20of%20Onan.pdf > . > > Is this fair terms for further discussion? Isn't it important that we > know the ins and outs of this controversial topic? Shouldn't we as > thinking, intellectual, Christians know both sides of the Birth > Control and the Bible issue? If you answers to these questions is > yes, I look forward to discussing this topic with you! > > Your Brother In Christ, > > Bobby > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
