I thought we were done with this... sigh...
I did take the time to read both and they were good reads. In my opinion
Bayly's logic lacked in at least one place. He dismissed adultery as a
possible explanation on the grounds that the acceptable form of punishment for
adultery was death and yet Judah did not die when he committed adultery; while
dismissing the failure to produce an heir theory by saying that humilation and
not death was the punishment for this and yet Onan died. The argument appears
the same yet the conclusions run counter to each other.
I made the anachronism point myself during the previous discussion - i.e. there
was no "law" per se in place that stated Onan needed to get with his
sister-in-law. It was a custom of the time which of course later became law.
And incidentally, if this custom became law why didn't a prohibition on
birth-control also become law? Granted some things are seen as so obvious to
the denizens of the time that no law is necessary but this theorom would seem
to apply to the heir custome as well then, right?
I get a little lost in the civil law versus moral law discussion but as Bayly
also mentions himself - the acceptable form of birth-control was coitos
interruptus in the time and yet we don't hear of a bunch of men dropping dead
all over the place. I wouldn't expect the bible to record every instance of
this, but I would expect that if men were dropping dead every time they pulled
out - word would get around and this form of birth control wouldn't last long
(surely not to the 1800's and the invention of vulcanized rubber...). The
question then becomes why did God take a special interest in Onan? As I've
already proposed in the previous discussion it is because we are dealing with
the line of Jesus and God acted to preserve it, which is something He is seen
doing more than once.
A couple of other thoughts that I had as I read through is I'm not entirely
sure I buy the premise that our life on this earth is so valuable to God. It
seems odd that we would have a problem with the death of Onan's semen and less
problem with the death of Onan himself. Bayly tries to put Onan in select
ranks for committing some particularly heinous crime but in actuality God kills
lots of people in the Old Testament for a lot smaller transgressions. Bayly
didn't even mention Er who died for being wicked. Heck, God wiped out everyone
but Noah's family at one point. Not to mention enemy armies whose only crime
was being on the wrong side. Or how about a soldier who tried to save the ark
of the covenant from falling but dies because he touched it. The point is that
clearly human life means something very different to God. (Hence, killing Er
and Onan for not propogating the line of Jesus.) I'm ok with this: not that He
needs my approval. But why then would I think God wants me having kids
everytime I engage in sexual relations? Maybe I should limit my sexual
relations? Why then does Paul tell me to get married if I burn with passion.
Not because burning with passion is wrong I think.... After all, if someone is
not a eunuch or a sworn celibate than they should get married right?
It also occurred to me when reading Luther's quotes on page 11 that maybe we're
/ their all still seeing it wrong. Maybe it wasn't the loss of the seed at all
but just the pulling out. Forgive me for being graphic but it certainly feels
better to consumate inside rather than out. Maybe the pulling out and the
subsequent degredation of the experience is the issue and not the loss of the
seed at all. A bit far-fetched but interesting. Didn't Mike say something
similar in previous discussion? (Check, check, check- yes, he did.)
And finally, I just can't get on board with the argument that because the
church saw it this way for thousands of years that the twentieth century is
somehow wrong in its updated analysis. Maybe we are but maybe we're not and
the length of time the beliefs were held and by whom seem pretty irrelevant.
Chopsticks were around for a long time too but it turns out the fork is better.
Rob
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:45:16 -0700> Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Is
> Birth Control Okay? (Revisited)> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> [email protected]> > > 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> > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
