"Be Fruitful and Multiply..."

Let us now examine the first point in the LCR document:

1. The command of God to be "fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,17; 35:11; 1 Tim. 5:10,14; AC XXIII, #5 & 8, Triglot p. 61; AP XXIII, #7-8, Trigl. p. 365-7; LC 6th Comm., # 207, Trigl., p. 639).

Genesis 1:28

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 9:

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Genesis 35:11

Also God said to him: “I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

1 Timothy 5:

10...well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

AC XXIII, #5 & 8, Triglot p. 61:

"God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28 ... No man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God."

AP XXIII, #7-8, Trigl. p. 365-7:

"First. Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to fruitful and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite which was to have been in nature in its integrity, which they call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

"The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth, but that now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded. See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so forced by the Word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist; just as the earth becomes fruitful by the word, Gen. 1:11: Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God, the nature of a human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law (that a woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman)."

LC 6th Comm., # 207, Trigl., p. 639:

"Therefore, He also wishes us to honor it (matrimony), and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should (legiti­mately) live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God."

I will also add here an excerpt from some of Luther's comments regarding the divine ordinance "Be Fruitful and Multiply."

The following translation, the first into English, is based on the text published by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg, Uom Eelichen Leben, as reprinted with annotations in WA 10, 275–304.

Jesus

How I dread preaching on the estate of marriage! I am reluctant to do it because I am afraid if I once get really involved in the subject it will make a lot of work for me and for others. The shameful confusion wrought by the accursed papal law has occasioned so much distress, and the lax authority of both the spiritual and the temporal swords has given rise to so many dreadful abuses and false situations, that I would much prefer neither to look into the matter nor to hear of it. But timidity is no help in an emergency; I must proceed. I must try to instruct poor bewildered consciences, and take up the matter boldly. This sermon is divided into three parts.

Part One

In the first part we shall consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another. In order to proceed aright let us direct our attention to Genesis 1[:27], “So God created man … male and female he created them.” From this passage we may be assured that God divided mankind into two classes, namely, male and female, or a he and a she. This was so pleasing to him that he himself called it a good creation [Gen. 1:31]. Therefore, each one of us must have the kind of body God has created for us. I cannot make myself a woman, nor can you make yourself a man; we do not have that power. But we are exactly as he created us: I a man and you a woman. Moreover, he wills to have his excellent handiwork honored as his divine creation, and not despised. The man is not to despise or scoff at the woman or her body, nor the woman the man. But each should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is weil-pleasing unto God himself.

In the second place, after God had made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply. Now this [ordinance] is just as inflexible as the first, and no more to be despised and made fun of than the other, since God gives it his blessing and does something over and above the act of creation. Hence, as it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man. For it is not a matter of free choice or decision but a natural and necessary thing, that whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man.

For this word which God speaks, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man , and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but created them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice.

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19:12, 'There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.' Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.

[Luther's works, vol. 45, The Christian in Society II, The Estate of Marriage, pp. 15-18]

So, is there any doubt that only those with the gift of celibacy are exempt from thie divine ordinance to "be fruitful and multiply?"

Semantics, Pt. II. Implications

I just received in the mail the new CTCR document 'Christian Faith and Human Beings: Christian Care and Pre-Implantation Human Life' (more to come on the document itself). In it they quote at several points a Christian ethicist by the name Oliver O'Donovan. One quote in particular serves as a fantastic follow up to the previous Kaas quote on semantics. It demonstrates not only the changed in the words we use but some of the freight and implications of those words.

When we start making human beings we necessarily stop loving them; that which is made rather than begotten becomes something that we have at our disposal, not someone with whom we can engage in brotherly fellowship.

Oliver O'Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 65. Found in the new CTCR document (named above) on pg. 28.

Semantics and the study of God's Word

The following is a quote from Leon Kass. It shows in short order how the language employed by mankind concerning parents and child has changed over the centuries. As the language has changed so has the worldview. It is instructive for us in our current discussion in that it helpfully lead us to take stock of what language we employ and see if that is the language that God's Word employs.

Consider the views of life and the world reflected in the following different expressions to describe the process of generating new life. Ancient Israel, impressed with the phenomenon of stransmission of life from father to son, used a word we translate as "begetting" or "siring." The Greeks, impressed with the springing forth of new life in the cyclical processes of generation and decay, called it genesis, from a root meaning "to come into being." ... The premodern Christian English-speaking world, impressed with the world as given by a Creator, used the term "pro-creation." We, impressed with the machine and the gross national product (our own work of creation), employ a metaphor of the factory, "re-production."

Leon R. Kass, M.D., Toward a More Natural Science (New York: The Free Press, 1985), p. 48.

God is the Creator of All Human Life

Does anyone believe that it is we sinful mortals who create and/or give life to children? It is God alone who bestows life! All we can do is prevent life and kill. Contrary to our inflated egos, we cannnot create (bara' - ברא ) anything nor give life to anything. God simply uses us as his tools.

Genesis 30 Read This Chapter

30:2And Jacob's anger was aroused against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"

1 Samuel 2 Read This Chapter

2:5Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, And the hungry have ceased to hunger. Even the barren has borne seven, And she who has many children has become feeble.

Acts 17 Read This Chapter

17:25Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

17:28for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.

Consider Luther's Words:

"This passage [Genesis 9:1], moreover, leads us to believe that children are a gift of God and come solely through the blessing of God, just as Ps. 127:3 shows. The heathen, who have not been instructed by the Word of God, believe that the propagation of the human race happens partly by nature, partly by accident, especially since those who are regarded as most suited for procreation often fail to have children. Therefore the heathen do not thank God for this gift, nor do they receive their children as the gift of God."

[Luther's Works Vol. 2, p. 132]

What Does This Mean?

"We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need."

Notice that the negatives are understood better from the perspective of the positives.

I believe it is safe to assume that most who are reading this blog already believe that there is something wrong with contraception, though it has become obvious that there are disagreements as to why. Is it simply a natural law matter of not separating the individual act of sexual relations from procreation, or are there even greater Christian principles involved here? What does God's Word say about it?

The Word addresses the issue we have been discussing on this blog mostly from the positive perspective of God's perfect will of fruitfulness rather than the violation of God's will. It should therefore be the primary intent of this study of Scripture to examine God's positive intent with regard to procreation. There is no possible way one could list all of the potential violations of that perfect will.

Just like in the explanation of the Commandments in Luther's Small Catechism, we better understand how to identify what we are forbidden to do by examining what we should be doing to fulfill God's will. For example, if we think of the Fifth Commandment only in the negative terms of murder, hurt, and anger, and all the things we could possibly do which are forbidden by this commandment, we miss the main point that what God means for us to do is to help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.

If we are not fulfilling God's will in a positive sense, we are just as guilty of the negative violations of it as the murderer or the adulterer. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Did you ever notice how Luther's explanation of that commandment doesn't list any of the negatives we are to avoid? "We should fear and love God that we may lead a chaste and decent life in words and deeds, and each love and honor his spouse." If you understand the positive expectations, the innumerable negatives are readily recognized when they show themselves.

So, to better understand what we are NOT supposed to do according to God's will, let us first learn what God would have us do with regard to procreation. With that in mind, let's go ahead and follow the the evidence as presented in the LCR document. I will begin with point one in a subsequent post.

Any thoughts so far?

Blessings,

Caspar

I thought I'd post these questions here, since I can

Caspar, I agree with you on so many levels. I want to say that first.

We are pregnant with number two right now, and Liv is only 15 months old. And like Rob has said before, he came from a family of 7. And for the most part I intend to use extended breastfeeding as a means to space children, since this is both what is best for my body and for my babies. In fact, I have heard that with every year that you breast feed your risk of cancer is decreased. And the decrease is a dramatic one when you go from year four to year five (I'm not the kind of person who keeps these sorts of things for future reference, so you'll just have to take my word for it, I read it somewhere.)

I guess my only concerns with the whole of your argument are the two questions which will follow. They are disjointed and fragmented since I have only been married for two years and haven't spent any time before engagement thinking about these issues. This is all new to me.

Also, I apologize but I have not read your last post in depth since I am deathly ill and exhausted with morning (all day) sickness. I promise I will get to it. These questions have been burning in my head and it kept me up from 2:30 to 5 am last night, and I just needed to ask.

Anyways... My first question:

Is it sinful (since you propose that all contraception is sinful) to contracept in order to adopt, in your opinion? The adoption process takes up to two years, and even longer if you intend to do so internationally. One of the stipulations of most, if not all adoption agencies is that you cannot become pregnant during the adoption process.

This isn't just some far fetched out there question to slip you up. I very much desire to adopt internationally. In order to do so most countries require that you have 4 or less natural children. So I will be at four children around 30, God willing, and far from done with my fertile years. In order to adopt I will need to contracept for at least two years.

If this is not a sin, then what other circumstances are not sinful contraception?

If it is a sin, and just "the lesser of two evils" then that leads me to my next question:

When one says something is less of a sin than another thing, aren't we just comparing specks and logs?

It sounds like the guy in the temple thanking God that at least he's not like that tax collector. "Sure I sin God, it's unavoidable, but I always try to choose the lesser of two evils."

I do not mean to be sarcastic. I agreed with you at first, but the more I think about these things the more what your saying sounds to me like a sort of negative pietism (which I say with the most respect that I can).

Thanks for the deviation from your systematic argument... We can now continue with your regularly scheduled blog...

God's Word and Procreation

It appears the NFP discussion has stalled for the time being. Let us now begin where I think this entire blog should have started: the greater biblical argument against ALL forms of family planning (a.k.a. "birth control"). Stated in the positive form, this is the biblical doctrine of procreation.

For purposes of this discussion, let's lump all "birth control" methods into one term: "family planning" (a.k.a. "planned parenthood"). This term includes "natural" family planning (NFP) and other non-abortifactient contraceptive methods (e.g. barrier, withdrawal, and spermicide), all potentially abortifacient contraceptives (e.g. hormonal and IUD), voluntary abortion, whether chemically or surgically induced, and voluntary sterilization. These all are "means." But the problem of sin is a problem of the heart.

The sin of family planning in the heart is believing we have a right to "plan" our families, whether that is 12, 6, 3, 2, or no children, and a right to have sexual pleasure without the burden of children popping up whenever God desires them to. This is where the sin of "contraception" begins in the heart, and then it bursts forth in a plethora of acts of of immorality, from masturbation to sodomy and even murder (abortion), all because we think we have a right to sexual pleasure without the possibility of procreation. The reasons given by Christians to justify the planning (or banning) of one's family are almost always based upon myths, selfishness, materialism, hedonism (love of pleasure), convenience, or postmodern reasoning, and may indicate a distrust of God and His Word.

Those who look at the subject of family planning only from the perspective of "means" miss the point of this sin entirely, because they are looking at actions rather than at what the state of the heart is. As I tried to explain in the immediately previous post which was limited to NFP, the problem of sin is not the sin itself, but the condition of one's heart. Whoever keeps the Law outwardly and yet stumbles at just one point in his heart is guilty of breaking the ENTIRE Law. What you do certainly matters, but if you look at actions in isolation from the heart, the outside of the cup may look clean while the inside is filthy.

The title of this blog is "Lutherans and Contraception." So, now let us investigate what God has to say about the matter of procreation from a Lutheran perspective of Scripture. I would like to present the entire biblical evidence first in short form in this post and then move through it point by point in subsequent posts according to individual biblical arguments.

The best brief presentation of the historical biblical position from a confessional Lutheran position I have ever seen is the doctrinal statement of the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR). I will now present it here, unaltered, as it was adopted by them at their 1989 convention:


PROCREATION
(The following statement was adopted by the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation)
God is the Creator of all human life (Gen. 30:2; 1 Sam. 2:5f; 2 Kgs. 5:7; Acts 17:25,28) and desires to create spiritual life in all sinful human beings, that everyone come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Married couples¹ should reproduce in observance of the following Biblical principles:

1. The command of God to be "fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,17; 35:11; 1 Tim. 5:10,14; AC XXIII, #5 & 8, Triglot p. 61²; AP XXIII, #7-8, Trigl. p. 365-7³; LC 6th Comm., # 207, Trigl., p. 639⁴).

2. Children are a blessing from the Lord (Gen. 1:28; 15:2-5; 17:5f.; 24:60; 33:5; 48:9; 49:25; Lev. 26:9; Deut. 28:4; Josh. 24:3; Ruth 4:11f.; Psalm 107:38; 127:3-5; 128:3-6; 147:13; Prov. 5:18; 17:6; LC 4th Comm., # 105, Trigl. p. 611⁵).

3. It is God who opens or closes the womb (Gen 16:1-2; 17:15-19; 20:18; 21:1-2; 25:21; 29:31; 30:2-6, 23f; Deut. 32:18; Lev. 20:20f; Judg. 13:3; Ruth 4:13; 1 Sam. l:19f; 2:21; Job 10:8-12; Psalm 22:9-10; 113:9; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Isa. 8:18; 43:1,7; 44:2,24; 49:1,5; 66:9; Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:36f, 57f; Heb. 11:11).

4. Having children is a good work for Christians (1 Tim. 2:15; AP XXIII, #32, Trigl. p. 373⁶).

5. Christians are to be mindful that they are not only to be fruitful and populate the earth, but they are to bring up their children as Christians and thus populate heaven (Prov. 3:21f.; 4:3f., 20-22; Mk. 10:13-16; Acts 2:38f.; Eph. 6:1,4; Heb. 2:10).

6. In Scripture barrenness is regarded as an affliction (Gen. 11:30; 15:2; 16:2; 18:11f.; 25:21; 30:1,22f.; 1 Sam. 1:2,5-7,l0f.; Prov. 30:15f; Luke 1:7,24f.,58).

7. There are many examples in Scripture of fruitful parents among the godly (Gen. 3:20; 4:1,25; 5:4; 24:60; 30:1-24; Judg. 13:2f; Job 1:2; 42:13-16).

8. The Word of God prohibits us to "put asunder" marriage (Matt. 19:4-6), including its purposes (1 Cor. 7:2,5; Gen. 2:24).

9. The Bible exhibits the wrath of God upon those who defy His will (Gen. 38:8-10; Exod. 21:22; Rom. 1:18).

10. God desires that we put our trust in Him in all matters, also in His will and ability to provide for the children that He gives us (Exod. 23:20,26; Psalm 30:7; 37:25f.; Phil 4:13; 1 Pet. 5:7).

Pastors should counsel families both publicly and privately to observe these principles. The churches and ministers should not take it upon themselves to investigate the private practices of their members (Eighth Commandment). Refusal to reproduce should be treated first by patient instruction and counsel. Nevertheless, when a situation becomes a public scandal then evangelical discipline is in order (Matt. 18:17).

While we allow for exegetical differences and exceptional cases (casuistry), we must also maintain and teach the principles relating to this issue (Matt. 28:20; Acts 20:27). Such was the united teach­ing of Dr. Martin Luther and the "Old Missouri" fathers (C.F.W. Walther, F. Pieper, A.L. Graebner, C.M. Zorn, W.H.T. Dau, J.T. Mueller, W. Dallman, F. Bente, E.W.A. Koehler, L. Fuerbringer, T. Engelder, Th. Laetsch, G. Luecke, W.A. Maier, M.J. Naumann, et al.) and LCR leaders such as P.E. Kretzmann and W.H. McLaughlin.

The reasons given to justify the prevention of conception are often based upon myths, selfishness, materialism, hedonism (love of pleasure), convenience, usurpation of God's prerogative, or humanis­tic reasoning and generally indicate a distrust of the Almighty God and His Word.

NOTES

1. The unmarried are not to reproduce, since they are unable to engage in legitimate sexual inter­course.

2. "God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28 ... No man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God."

3. "First. Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to fruitful and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite which was to have been in nature in its integrity, which they call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

"The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth, but that now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded. See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so forced by the Word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist; just as the earth becomes fruitful by the word, Gen. 1:11: Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God, the nature of a human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law (that a woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman)."

4. "Therefore, He also wishes us to honor it (matrimony), and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should (legiti­mately) live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God."

5. "To this estate of fatherhood and motherhood God has given the special distinction above all estates that are beneath it that He not simply commands us to love our parents, but to honor them. .. He separates and distinguishes father and mother above all other persons on earth, and places them at His side."

6. "...that woman is saved by the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing children and other duties. But what does St. Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without faith are not praised. If they continue, he says, in faith. For he speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore he requires especially faith, by which a woman receives the remission of sins and justification... Thus the duties of the woman please God on account of faith, and the believing woman is saved who in such duties devoutly serves her calling."

Ethics and the Nature of Sin

CONFLICTING ABSOLUTES

Pr. Curtis makes the point in his post below that we need to look at goals and means separately. His position is that the goal is not always sin, but certain means are always sin. What this introduces is the topic of casuistry, the application of ethical principles.

In Lutheran (i.e. Christian) ethics, the first principle must always be that we are incapable of fulfilling ANY of God's laws. There is no sinless way out for us. In this understanding, we must often "choose the lesser evil" and throw ourselves on God's mercy. This is called the theory of conflicting absolutes. There are no exceptions to God's Law. I suggest reading Norman Geisler's Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989); and Helmet Thielicke's Theological Ethics, ed. William H. Lazareth, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966, out of print). I have both these works and have found the knowledge contained therein to be invaluable in considering ethical issues.

Abortion is always wrong. There are no exceptions. But tubal pregnancies must be aborted or the mother will very likely die, and the baby will die in either case (tubal pregnancies never make it). We must choose the lesser evil in this case and abort, with the knowledge that our sins are forgiven. I sometimes wonder if I should even get out of bed in the morning, because I know it will lead to sin. It is a greater evil to stay in bed and not be fulfilling my vocations as much as humanly possible, so I get up and start sinning.

With that in mind, is the goal of preventing conception always sinful? I say yes. It may sound contradictory, but I also do not claim that there is no potentially acceptable reason when contraception might be the lesser evil. At the same time, I contend that no one has an entirely sinless reason for contraception. Abstinence outside of marriage, of course, is the only God pleasing way to live outside of marriage. But can abstinence ever be sinless within marriage if it is for the purpose of preventing a life from being created by a man and wife? My contention is that it will always be an example of trying to chose the lesser evil. These are rare but difficult decisions that cry out for the aid of one's pastor. But how many pastors understand God's law in the area of procreation? Sadly almost none.

I believe this discussion, thus far, has been missing two absolutely crucial dimensions. First is the biblical explanation of why family planning is sinful. In the post below Pr. Curtis identifies two ways in which contraception can be sinful: goals and means. One way is not having a valid reason (goal?) for contracepting, in which case all means become sinful. The other is having a valid reason, but using a means which is prohibited by God's law, and Pr. Curtis believes NFP is the only valid means.

While I agree that the natural law argument is one of the ways in which Scripture shows family planning to be wrong, we will soon see that there is much more to the "sinfulness" of contraception than this narrow Romanist viewpoint illustrates (no insult to Pr. Curtis intended - I do not believe he is a Romanist). But, alas, the primary discussion of the subject of "why family planning is sinful according to God's Word" must wait for the progression of the discussion on NFP, according to Pr. Rufner's prescription.

THE NATURE OF SIN

The second dimension that I believe has been missing in discussions thus far falls in the context of original sin, which our visitor Lawrence has brought up. In this context we don't deal with means, by which one achieves a goal, but with the very nature of the individual himself. Sin is much more than actions and goals; it is our state of being. This second point is the big picture of the issue which I believe should take precedence.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I do not use any form of contraception, yet I am still guilty of this sin (poor miserable sinner that I am), being contraceptive in my heart. I often desire some form of contraception, even though I use none. It's hard raising six children (though it was harder raising one - not the child's fault, first time parents are a wreck!). My knowledge of God's law regarding procreation curbs me with the first use of the law and instructs me via the third use of the law, but it also always on this earth will convict me via the second use of the law. Praise God for the Gospel!

Many people today believe they are following God's law against adultery because they don't sleep with anyone but their spouse. Christ brings the law into focus by saying: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Likewise, anger is equated with murder. Luther further explains that the perfect fulfillment of this law is more than preventing ourselves from being angry at our neighbor. It is to "help and befriend him in every bodily need."

In the same manner, I believe we need to have the overall view of the sin of contraception as being contraceptive in heart, regardless of what means are, or are not, used. All our sins are forgiven so that we are all perfect saints through faith in Christ, but our sinful nature cannot be reformed so we are always sinners. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. That said, what can still condemn us? Only unbelief! Thank God for the gift of faith!

So, why does St. Paul say in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that those who live in manifest sins of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of heaven? Very simply, and only, because living in such sins (adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, etc.) is incompatible with faith in Christ. It is evidence of unbelief. It should then give one pause that Augustine said contraception was akin to adultery and harlotry. Luther equated it with sodomy. Lukas Osiander said that those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

We all continue to sin daily, but there is a big difference between struggling with sin (of which we repent) and living in sin (which is therefore unrepentant). Nobody goes to hell because of sin. Christ took away the sins of the whole world! People go to hell because of unbelief, which is clearly evidenced by living in manifest sins of the flesh.

Now, you can understand that what concerns me about NFP is that it is not a practice which a couple just happens to fall into, with an accompanying feeling of guilt, like barrier methods can cause. It is the most premeditated and successful way to limit family size known today. It is a complete lifestyle, with daily monitoring of the woman's fertility, with the primary intent of preventing procreation. This is completely contrary to God's law with regard to procreation, and potentially incompatible with faith.

With all the above in mind, consider Luther's explanation of 1 Timothy 2:15, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

"15. 'SHE WILL BE SAVED.' That subjection of women and domination of men have not been taken away, have they? No. The penalty remains. The blame passed over. The pain and tribulation of childbearing continue. Those penalties will continue until judgment. So also the dominion of men and the subjection of women continue. You must endure them. You will also be saved if you have also subjected yourselves and bear your children with pain. 'THROUGH BEARING CHILDREN.' It is a very great comfort that a woman can be saved by bearing children, etc. That is, she has an honorable and salutary status in life if she keeps busy having children. We ought to recommend this passage to them, etc. She is described as 'saved' not for freedom, for license, but for bearing and rearing children. Is she not saved by faith? He goes on and explains himself: bearing children is a wholesome responsibility, but for believers. To bear children is acceptable to God. He does not merely say that bearing children saves: he adds: if the bearing takes place in faith and love, it is a Christian work, for 'to the pure all things are pure (Titus 1 :15).' Also: 'All things work together,' Rom. 8:28. This is the comfort for married people in trouble: hardship and all things are salutary, for through them they are moved forward toward salvation and against adultery.... 'IN FAITH.' Paul had to add this, lest women think that they are good in the fact that they bear children. Simple childbearing does nothing, since the heathen also do this. But for Christian women their whole responsibility is salutary. So much the more salutary, then is bearing children. I add this, therefore, that they may not feel secure when they have no faith." [Luther's Works, Vol. 28, p. 279]

Women (and men) are "not saved for freedom, for license." NFP is a license to sin given out by the Roman Catholic Church. If you have a "valid" reason, Rome will not call you to repentance for valuing your life more than the potential children you are preventing from birth. You have an exception clause! You are sinless in this area of your life. Keep working on the others.

CASUISTRY

Back to the Lutheran ethical principle of conflicting absolutes. If there is a case where we must choose the lesser evil and prevent the conception of a child, what means should we use? NFP would be a good start, but it is not foolproof (take that word literally). For some, sterilization could be the method of choice. For a hypothetical instance, consider an incurable disease in the wife which would make pregnancy 100% fatal.

If the couple decides that the lesser evil is contracepting, I would recommend a complete hysterectomy for the wife. The husband should not be sterilized, because he may remarry and beget more children. However, if the wife is potentially curable, I would recommend NFP and barrier methods and/or even reversible tubal ligation to greater ensure the life of the mother. All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. These would be the expedient methods in this case of casuistry, in my understanding of sin.

Much more could (and should) be said, but this post is long enough. More will proceed in comments and further posts.

Blessings,
Caspar Heydenreich