Okay, Here is an argument I can live with. Tell me what you think.
Either it is permissible to limit the number of your children or it is not. Certainly it seems permissible to limit the number of your children, for all the reasons mentioned in the position paper of Piper's church. Children are a great thing -- so is land -- and both are blessings, but it is not a sin to limit those blessings. So on the assumption that it is permissible to limit the number of your children, there seem to be only two ways to limit them. First, you could practice "onanized" birth control (which involves ejaculation which is not intended for reproduction). And second, you could practice abstinence (a non-onanized form of birth control). But long term abstinence within marriage doesn't make sense at all from a NT perspective, since it is quite possible that a reason you got married was to follow Paul's advice to marry rather than to burn with lust (1 Cor 7:8-9). It makes no sense to marry, in part, to satisfy your "lust" and then to abstain once you desire no more children. For you will still burn with lust, which Paul claims should be satisfied within the confines of marriage. So, the only alternative is to practice "onanized" birth control. This means so called onanism cannot be wrong, because, again, (a) It is permissible to limit the number of your children, and (b) Long term abstinence within marriage is never required. So even if God killed Onan in Gen. 8:9-10 precisely for ejaculating on the ground, we cannot draw the conclusion that it is wrong, always and everywhere, to do so. Accordingly, Christians should feel free to practice any type of non-abortive birth control within a marriage relationship. Bob Johnson On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 » > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
