Skip to comments.Being fruitful [Evangelicals and contraception]
Posted on 07/11/2002 1:09:31 PM PDT by Evangelium VitaeEdited on 07/12/2004 3:55:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
No one can accuse the Torodes of failing to practice what they preach. Their son Gideon was born almost exactly nine months after their November 2000 wedding.
"We don't waste any time," says Mr. Torode, 26, of South Wayne, Wis. He and his 21-year-old wife are expecting their second child in February.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
When Scott Hahn was studying theology with his wife Kimberly (both were vehemently anti-Catholic at that time), Kimberly took up studying contraception for a course.
What Kimberly Hahn found was to prove to Scott (at that time just a student of theology) that there was more to the contraception issue.
There true story is quite compelling -- for it tells of the world of being evangelical Protestants and having a deep and rich interest in the Bible as well as reaching out to people. Yet on the other hand, they eventually ventured into the world of Catholicism (when Scott graduated from the seminary, he considered the Pope to be the anti-Christ).
More than anything, I get angry at Catholics who use contraception in direct violation of the Catechism, or who vote pro-choice, or who are "personally pro-life but ...".
The fact is that contraception is evil because it puts a barrier between the giving relationship of husband and wife. It takes life out of the equation, and makes sex a selfish act. Natural Family Planning is the only acceptable form of birth control. There are legitimate reasons to want to space children, and NFP lets couples to it together, while always accepting that God could have different plans and there may be an "unplanned" pregnancy, but never unwanted.
My husband and I have practiced NFP since we married, and I've never regreted it.
I hope that more Protestant couples come to the realization that the contraception mentality is leading them down the path of moral decay, and that they will join the Catholic Church in condemning contraception as an moral evil.
I pray that all young couples understand the true meaning of marriage as this couple does.
Food for thought... In Russia, the Baptists and Pentecostals have long considered contraception to be wrong. And so, in Russia, with one of the lowest birthrates in the world (due to abortion, contraception, etc), and a skyrocketing AIDS rate, one subset of the population is having 8-10 kids per couple -- the Bible believers. Do the projections -- in a few generations, virtually every Russian will have at least one Bible-believing grandparent, if they're not actual believers themselves. Now THAT is CULTURAL IMPACT!!!
Question: Will American Christians seize the opportunity? Or will we contracept ourselves into oblivion, and leave the land empty for a more deserving nation to move in? If we don't want it, someone else will be happy to have it.
I do know people who've had vasectomies and later in life ended up parents anew anyway, so I'm confident at this point that if I'm meant to father another child it will happen. When we first discussed this we had decided that if we wished to have any more children from that point on, we would adopt. We have a lot to offer to a child who needs two loving Christian parents.
I've heard a lot of debate over contraception recently, and I'm still undecided on what the Biblical position truly is. In any case, I have great admiration for those who can and do have many children.
I believe that one of the biggest misconceptions about NFP is that "oh, that's for people who want large families." Nothing is further than the truth.
When practiced properly, NFP is more effective than ANY OTHER FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. Check out the information at the Couple to Couple League website which shows the studies done with NFP.
As for myself, I would love to have a large family but financially it's difficult. We have a five year spacing between my second child and my third, and planned it practically to the day. My OB told me if I didn't go artificial birth control that I would be in "within a year" pregnant again. I said no, five years. I was right.
The "no" to life, which the use of contraceptives cries out by its very name, can thus be seen first and foremost as a "no to God". This had already been forcefully stressed by Paul VI in Humanae vitae. This passage also bears repeating in its entirety: "... a reciprocal act of love, which jeopardizes the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, according to particular laws, inserted therein, is in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage, and with the will of the Author of Life., To use this divine gift while destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and his will" (n. 13).Here's some biblical references:
The Bible and Birth Control
The book of Genesis is the primary reference for the prohibition on contraception. The basis for marriage is given in Genesis, "male and female he created them"(1:27)..."and they become one flesh" (2:24). The first institution mentioned in the Bible is the family. The first commandment of God to man is "Be fruitful and multiply"(1:28). So we know that in God's intention for Man, before the Fall, men and women were meant to be paired and become "one flesh", in order to fulfil the commandment in 1:28. The original intent was monogamous, lifetime union.
But in Genesis 38, we find the story of Tamar and Onan. Tamar was married to Er, but Er died before they had any children. Following a custom called the "Law of the Levirate", Er's brother Onan is commanded by Judah (their father) to have intercourse with Tamar.
38:8 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".Several things about this passage are significant. The Law of the Levirate was a mechanism for preserving and perpetuating a family line. But the penalty for not following it was not serious; if a brother refused to perform his duty, the offended sister-in-law could publicly strike him on the face with his sandal, and henceforth he would be surnamed "The Unshod". The death penalty was not involved. But 38:10 informs us that God considered this incident more than a mere refusal of duty; it was such a serious offence that He slew Onan.
38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
38:10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
For 19 centuries, until 1930 in fact, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox commentators were in unanimous agreement on their interpretation of this passage: Onan attempted to have the pleasure of intercourse, but defrauded it of its procreative meaning by withdrawing. That this was a violation of the earlier commandments in Genesis was underscored by the magnitude of the divine penalty - God apparently took this very seriously!
Contraception takes life-giving out of conjugal love, and turns marital love into a selfish, anti-life act.
This is my opinion, of course, supported by the Catholic Church and an increasing number of Protestants. I hope this helps you understand that our position is biblically based.
You're wrong about that. If a couple decides to have a big family instead of cable tv, eating out to fancy restaurants, owning Lexus sedans, and vacations in Europe. See, that's how things ought to be.
The country will change because the liberals who believes in abortion will cease to exist in the next few generations. Maybe it's evolution in progress, after all.