tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post113350604622916203..comments2023-12-05T19:10:42.635-05:00Comments on Lutherans and Procreation: The Contraceptive Age: Again More Fruit?Erich Heidenreich, DDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134494853241066232005-12-13T12:27:00.000-05:002005-12-13T12:27:00.000-05:00David,See the first post in this comments section....David,<BR/><BR/>See the first post in this comments section.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134486083109972292005-12-13T10:01:00.000-05:002005-12-13T10:01:00.000-05:00Great discussion here, but is anyone willing to en...Great discussion here, but is anyone willing to engage the original content of the post?Pr. David Rufnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12472530023001908357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134423716329305052005-12-12T16:41:00.000-05:002005-12-12T16:41:00.000-05:00Lauren, Making the best use of the gift of Childr...Lauren, <BR/><BR/>Making the best use of the gift of Children is called "bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." [Eph. 6:4] Contraception is simply refusing what God wishes to give you. Those who budget their money still would accept all that God desires to bless them with. Those who use contraception wish to limit what God blesses them with.<BR/><BR/>There's a big difference between making the best of what God gives you and asking him not to give you so much.<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134413908029189572005-12-12T13:58:00.000-05:002005-12-12T13:58:00.000-05:00Tina,Actually, jumping out of a plane without a pa...Tina,<BR/><BR/>Actually, jumping out of a plane without a parachute _is_ inherently bad. It is inherently suicide, which is bad.<BR/><BR/>You claim,<BR/>"Also, you added a straw man in that you exaggerated my position to say it is rebellion against God to tamper with nature in any and every situation. That is not what I said."<BR/><BR/>It isn't? Let me quote you:<BR/>"...God has joined procreation to the sex act.... If we separate that which He has joined, are we sinning against what He has created?"<BR/><BR/>That argument doesn't make any sense unless you are assuming that it is inherently wrong to contravene nature.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134320346397740042005-12-11T11:59:00.000-05:002005-12-11T11:59:00.000-05:00Tina,Yes, God provides for us...through means. The...Tina,<BR/>Yes, God provides for us...through means. The means by which children are supported is through the occupation of a parent(s) by which they earn a paycheck. Are we worrying, or not trusting in God, when we have plan out our budget, put money in savings, and have health insurance? Rather, you are simply making the best use of the gifts God has given. I think that is the point being made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134237624811041162005-12-10T13:00:00.000-05:002005-12-10T13:00:00.000-05:00Eric,I have posted my reply to you in the _Let's G...Eric,<BR/><BR/>I have posted my reply to you in the _Let's Get Physical_ section. Please go there to continue the discussion. <BR/><BR/>J.ConnerConner7https://www.blogger.com/profile/00068989503036866142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134095487770353652005-12-08T21:31:00.000-05:002005-12-08T21:31:00.000-05:00Eric,Such a grump. I never said I did either. ;) B...Eric,<BR/><BR/>Such a grump. I never said I did either. ;) But as long as we're talking about it, Luther did (personal prayer book 1522, also Von Schem Hamphoras 1543).<BR/><BR/>Shouldn't have gotten pulled into your standard trick of changing ground in a debate (not your argument, but the position from which you're making it), and just pointed out that I brought it up as a potentially informative parallel. Naturally I didn't expect you to agree.<BR/><BR/>Back to my Feasting,<BR/>rmgcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134066965286045132005-12-08T13:36:00.000-05:002005-12-08T13:36:00.000-05:00rmgc asks,"Then wouldn't God have said, "Be fruitf...rmgc asks,<BR/><BR/>"Then wouldn't God have said, "Be fruitful and multiply as long as you have what you perceive to be a steady and sufficient income?" <BR/><BR/>Uh, maybe if God were a lawyer...<BR/><BR/>And another difference between the pastor and the parent is, people can go days--weeks--at a time without confession or counseling, etc. Children can't go without food that long.<BR/><BR/>One more thing: Lutherans don't believe in the immaculate conception.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134066793482707102005-12-08T13:33:00.000-05:002005-12-08T13:33:00.000-05:00Tina,You're confusing two different arguments. Th...Tina,<BR/><BR/>You're confusing two different arguments. The argument that children are good, and therefore we should not try to avoid them, is different from the argument that conception naturally follows sex, and it is rebellion against God to tamper with nature. The first argument has some merit. The second argument has none at all, and the first one cannot be called upon to bail it out.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134051819160154552005-12-08T09:23:00.000-05:002005-12-08T09:23:00.000-05:00Eric,Then wouldn't God have said, "Be fruitful and...Eric,<BR/><BR/>Then wouldn't God have said, "Be fruitful and multiply as long as you have what you perceive to be a steady and sufficient income?" And, eg, shouldn't a pastor have enough time to hear all the confessions of every baptized person in his parish? Every person baptized into his flock becomes his spiritual responsibility ("Feed my sheep"); why not keep the numbers reasonable? rmgc<BR/><BR/>(A happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception to all, btw.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1134000010250523872005-12-07T19:00:00.000-05:002005-12-07T19:00:00.000-05:00JConner,"I don’t understand how a couple can hones...JConner,<BR/><BR/>"I don’t understand how a couple can honestly say, 'We’re open to children, but we’re doing everything we can to prevent them.' "<BR/><BR/>It's not hard. There are plenty of bachelors, for instance, who avoid the social situations where they might meet women, but would still happily fall in love if the opportunity reached out and grabbed them by the back of the neck.<BR/><BR/>“If you don’t want to go to Cleveland, why are you on the train?” In other words, “If you don’t want babies, why are you having sex?” <BR/><BR/>Um... Maybe because the train also goes to Columbus? Or Toledo? How many goods of marriage are there again?<BR/><BR/>And again, you inistence that the means of NFP are not contraceptive makes no sense at all. I don't even know what that statement could mean. Contraception is an _end_, not a _means_. If your intention is to avoid children, then you are contracepting plain and simple, no matter what method you're using to achieve that result.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133999555320715962005-12-07T18:52:00.000-05:002005-12-07T18:52:00.000-05:00Tina,If I jump out of a plane, I don't want to go ...Tina,<BR/><BR/>If I jump out of a plane, I don't want to go down "the way God intended." I want the option of a parachute.<BR/><BR/>Heck, if we let the natural design govern things just because it was the natural design, we wouldn't have planes at all.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133999274768271452005-12-07T18:47:00.000-05:002005-12-07T18:47:00.000-05:00Caspar,That's true, but it wasn't the way JConner ...Caspar,<BR/><BR/>That's true, but it wasn't the way JConner was using the term.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133989189359245532005-12-07T15:59:00.000-05:002005-12-07T15:59:00.000-05:00Eric,Thanks for your reply. Obviously, we don’t a...Eric,<BR/>Thanks for your reply. <BR/><BR/>Obviously, we don’t agree on everything, but that’s what makes this blog great. We have the opportunity to discuss freely and openly where we differ.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that people may come around to the idea of children if they _unexpectedly showed up_. However, I still can’t see how a couple can be open to children if they are actively taking steps to prevent them. I don’t understand how a couple can honestly say, “We’re open to children, but we’re doing everything we can to prevent them.” <BR/><BR/>Even the couple who uses contraceptives to space children I have questions about. Janet Smith, who is well known for her lectures on contraceptives, ask a useful question in this regard (and this is from memory, so not an exact quote), she asks, “If you don’t want to go to Cleveland, why are you on the train?” In other words, “If you don’t want babies, why are you having sex?” <BR/><BR/>As for the one flesh union: I don’t see how the two can truly join together if they place a barrier between them. <BR/><BR/>And in regards to contraceptives and NFP as means, I think we were talking past one another. I agree with you that the end result may be no children and that the motive or reason for using them may be the same, but that wasn’t my point. I was focusing on the means. NFP as a means is not contraceptive. When a couple using NFP wishes to delay pregnancy, they abstain from sex. In order for a means to be contraceptive, a couple has to engage in sex. Therefore, NFP as a means is not contraceptive. <BR/><BR/>Also, you hit the nail on the head when you said _ Contraception attempts to prevent ONE of the ends of sex _. This is the problem with contraception as a means; it separates/prevents one (and I would argue more than one) of the ends of sex. You also said _ It "detaches the procreative and unitive goods" only while it is being used _. Exactly, which is why it shouldn’t be used. <BR/><BR/>Dave has written a more on this in a new post, so perhaps it would be useful to continue the discussion there. <BR/><BR/>JConnerConner7https://www.blogger.com/profile/00068989503036866142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133980409866973532005-12-07T13:33:00.000-05:002005-12-07T13:33:00.000-05:00Correction of fact,NFP is contraceptive when it is...Correction of fact,<BR/><BR/>NFP is contraceptive when it is used for the purpose of preventing conception. That is not the only reason anyone ever uses it. NFP is also an excellent technique to use for procreating in that it identifies the fertile period for the sowing of seed! <BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133974290531906302005-12-07T11:51:00.000-05:002005-12-07T11:51:00.000-05:00JConner says,"I do not believe it is possible to b...JConner says,<BR/><BR/>"I do not believe it is possible to be open to procreation 'in principle' while using contraception in practice."<BR/><BR/>Well, it certainly is. There are thousands of couples out there who are contracepting for the present, but would welcome a baby if one unexpectedly showed up. And there are thousands more who would be upset at first, but quickly get used to the idea. And of course, I wasn't even talking about those situations. I was talking about people who contracept for a few years and then stop, or who use it to space their children. Obviously _they_ are open to procreation, or they would contracept all the time.<BR/><BR/>JConner again:<BR/><BR/>"A sexual union in which contraception is used and thus in which the procreative good is actively thwarted is not a one flesh union at all."<BR/><BR/>Huh? The two become one flesh when they join together. That is the clear meaning of the metaphor.<BR/><BR/>JConner once more:<BR/><BR/>"Contraception (as a means) actively subverts the progress of sex toward its end and completely detaches the procreative and unitive goods of marriage. NFP (as a means), however, is never contraceptive."<BR/><BR/>1. Contraception attempts to prevent ONE of the ends of sex, not all three.<BR/><BR/>2. It "detaches the procreative and unitive goods" only while it is being used. Over the course of most marriages, that certainly does not amount to a "complete" separation. Otherwise there wouldn't, you know, be any kids.<BR/><BR/>3. NFP is 100% contraceptive. It's the only reason anyone ever uses it. There isn't a shred of difference between pouring my seed into a condom, and purposefully waiting until my wife is infertile to pour it into her. Both "separate the procreative and the unitive good" to the same extent and in the same way.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133973512712351472005-12-07T11:38:00.000-05:002005-12-07T11:38:00.000-05:00rmgc,There's a significant difference between the ...rmgc,<BR/><BR/>There's a significant difference between the pastor and the parent in your analogy, in that the pastor doesn't have to worry whether he makes enough money to provide for all the people he baptizes.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133973274775918062005-12-07T11:34:00.000-05:002005-12-07T11:34:00.000-05:00RMConner asks:"Yet the instances of infertility th...RMConner asks:<BR/><BR/>"Yet the instances of infertility that you cite are natural/God-ordained--shouldn't we make a distinction between that and the deliberate choice to introduce a barrier (much less possible abortifacient) into the marital act?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, there is a difference, and that difference needs separate discussion. But the question you asked is whether contraception demotes the good of procreation beneath the good of fellowship. I was pointing out that the good of fellowship _already_ has a huge upper hand if we're going to connect importance to frequency, because every sex act contributes to the marital bond, while only a small percentage are even potentially procreative.<BR/><BR/>In other words, we can't use a quantitative measure to determine whether we are privileging one good of marriage above another.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133972468727283832005-12-07T11:21:00.000-05:002005-12-07T11:21:00.000-05:00Thanks for clarifying, Lauren.I am still waiting f...Thanks for clarifying, Lauren.<BR/><BR/>I am still waiting for the go ahead to discuss the biblical prohibition of contraception. This discussion is following a preconceived path described in the early post called "beginnings." Here is my summary of that path laid out by Pr. Rufner. This is designed to take the reader through the progression of thought many of those who once used the pill have gone through.<BR/><BR/>1. Showing that the Pill is potentially abortifacient.<BR/><BR/>2. Anectotal explanations of the thought process individuals have gone through in moving from the Pill to non-abortifacient forms of contraception.<BR/><BR/>3. Why NFP is to be preferred to all others.<BR/><BR/>4. Why NFP is also sin (this point was added at my suggestion).<BR/><BR/>I am under the assumption that the biblical arguments against all forms of contraception will be presented when we reach point #4. Your last post shows the danger of following this prescribed line of reasoning. <BR/><BR/>I still believe that the biblical arguments against all forms of birth control need to be addressed first. Otherwise intelligent people such as yourself, who have not been thus convinced by Scripture, see the points which are currently being made on this blog as pietistic extrabiblical rules and regulations.<BR/><BR/>If Scripture prohibits all forms of birth control, then discussions about which form would be acceptable for Christians is simply foolish. That is, unless we are talking about the rare circumstances in which casuistry might indicate contraception would be the lesser evil (just as early abortion is the lesser evil in cases of tubal pregnancies). In such rare cases (if they truly exist) I would not hold up any of the non-abortifacient means above another, including sterilization, except in how successful they are at lowering the deadly risk of such a conception.<BR/><BR/>Blessings, and thanks for your participation here!<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133964250936871522005-12-07T09:04:00.000-05:002005-12-07T09:04:00.000-05:00Tina,I have not noticed that the church has "tosse...Tina,<BR/>I have not noticed that the church has "tossed out" your point #4, which is that marriages produce children. I honestly have not heard in any Lutheran churches or Lutheran writings that Christian marriages ought not produce children. <BR/><BR/>You agree that the Bible doesn't talk about 'how often', and yet I am hearing that those who DO decide 'how often' in their marriage are sinning. This is where I think man is speaking where God has kept silent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133909026923863272005-12-06T17:43:00.000-05:002005-12-06T17:43:00.000-05:00Erich/Casper,I have yet to be proven by Scripture ...Erich/Casper,<BR/>I have yet to be proven by Scripture that birth control is a sin. The Lord simply says to "be fruitful and multiply," but doesn't define what that looks like for us. Therefore, when I'm told that the Pill and barrier methods are sinful and that NFP is the only "Biblical" form of birth control, those are the additional regulations to which I am referring. <BR/><BR/>Please do not misunderstand me. I am supportive of large families (provided the children are supported by their parents), of being a stay-at-home mom, of teaching our children that Christian marriages produce children. <BR/><BR/>It seems as though man tries to define exactly what "be fruitful and multiply" looks like, and that is what causes me concern. Hope that helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133898186317550372005-12-06T14:43:00.000-05:002005-12-06T14:43:00.000-05:00Lauren,You say: "What I disagree with are these *a...Lauren,<BR/><BR/>You say: <I>"What I disagree with are these *additional* regulations and requirements that man adds to what God has said."</I><BR/><BR/>Would you please list the "additional regulations and requirements" that you are referring to here?<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>ErichErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133887500456616292005-12-06T11:45:00.000-05:002005-12-06T11:45:00.000-05:00David,I agree that Christian parents ought to teac...David,<BR/>I agree that Christian parents ought to teach their children that Christian marriages produce children. And yes, each child is a "gift received" from God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133887098527021542005-12-06T11:38:00.000-05:002005-12-06T11:38:00.000-05:00Casper:So what's your point? I agree that Christia...Casper:<BR/>So what's your point? I agree that Christian marriages produce children (unless there is infertility). What I disagree with are these *additional* regulations and requirements that man adds to what God has said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1133885368717602242005-12-06T11:09:00.000-05:002005-12-06T11:09:00.000-05:00Lauren,Though there was no specific frequency stat...Lauren,<BR/><BR/>Though there was no specific frequency stated, Christ did say "often."<BR/><BR/>Here's how the parallel can be made...<BR/><BR/>In regard to the Lord's Supper Gospel mandate, we do this as oft as we drink it in remembrance of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Procreation Gospel mandate, we do this as oft as we enjoy it, "in faith, love, and holiness, with propriety," remembering the Lord's creation ordinance and blessing to "be fruitful and multiply."<BR/><BR/>1 Timothy 2:15 - Nevertheless, she will be saved through bearing children, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with propriety.<BR/><BR/>Martin Luther on 1 Timothy 2:15 -<BR/><BR/> "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 salutory, 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." <BR/><BR/>(Luther's Works, Vol. 28, p. 279)Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.com