Woops, I also meant to mention - I wonder what role the rise of feminism has played in the re-evaluation of sexual attitudes in the Bible? Clearly Onan had no concern for the mutuality of the sexual experience (an attitude still shared by far too many men today I'm led to believe). This goes along the lines that its not the spilling the seed but rather the pulling out and "getting mine" without care for what the woman gets out of the experience. food for thought... Rob
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:07:37 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: Is Birth Control Okay? (Revisited) 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/45/1440_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> > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
