Drat... I'm embarassed that I get that... ha!> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:39:55
-0700> Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: Is Birth Control Okay? (Revisited)>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> > > How did
they know that Mr. Spock might have need of birth control> alternatives in the
1800's?> > > On Oct 14, 10:07 pm, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>
> Rob, what did you think about the position of Piper's church? I know it> >
falls in line with your perspective, but I was wondering what your thoughts> >
were about that paper.> >> > You raise some really good points, as you have
throughout this discussion.> > I know you are exasperated by this topic, but
maybe it will take me awhile> > to come around to you all's way of thinking.
I'm starting to become> > persuaded that you are right, especially after
reading your post. Good> > work!> >> > Bobby> >> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at
8:13 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> >> > > 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/45/1...> > >
.> > > > 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> >> > ...> >> > read more »>
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
