My husband would like to have the views of those here on "Is family planning biblical?"
Thank you.
English Rose
My husband would like to have the views of those here on "Is family planning biblical?"
Thank you.
English Rose
Hi English Rose,
I would be interested to read others too. I think without planning I ended up with a quiver full. That is five. If you want to read a remarkable book about family planning try and get hold of a book by Bernadette Keaggy - A Deeper Shade of Grace
His servant,
katoikei
(00:04)
Assuming that there are no health issues involved, I believe it best to leave the number of children in the hands of the Lord--neither seeking to prevent children nor going out of your mind trying to have them. The Scriptures speak of children as a blessing of the Lord.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Dear English Rose,
This is wonderful. I have just been reading through some of the 1500 plus passages in the Scriptures that have the word 'children' in them. Sometimes it is 'Children of Israel'. I see the heart of our heavenly Father. He sees us as children. It is Jesus who calls his disciples children, the Lord's apostle John who in his old age calls us 'little children' and Paul who refers to himself as a father. Such is the kingdom of God. He loves them, He blesses them, He protects them.
Lo, children are a heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 127:3
John Gill's Commentary:
Psa 127:3 - Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord,.... As all success, safety, and the blessings of life, depend on the providence of God; so this very great blessing is a gift of his; having children, and those good ones, as the Targum interprets it; for of such only can it be understood: so, in a spiritual sense, the children of Christ, the antitypical Solomon, are the gifts of his heavenly Father to him; his portion and inheritance, and a goodly heritage he esteems them;
and the fruit of the womb is his reward; "fruit" (y) is the same with "children" in the preceding clause; see Luk_1:42; a reward he gives to good men, not of debt, but of grace; the Targum,
"a reward of good works:''
so regenerate persons are a reward to Christ, of his sufferings and death, Isa_53:10.
(y) "Nascitur ad fructum mulier", Claudian. in Eutrop. l. 1. v. 331.
Hi, I am new here.
ISTM that Paul encouraged at least some form of family planning when he wrote to the Corinthians that they ought to refrain from marriage when the times were non-conducive:
1 Cor 7:
25 ¶ Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 ¶ But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
In other words, ISTM that Paul was not saying what many say - that all men should marry, or all women, or that all couples should have children. Rather it seems he encourages them to recognize the circumstances in which they find themselves and to act intelligently accordingly.
Not every wife ought to be pregnant every 12 months, even if her womb is fertile. Not every vessel is made of steel:
1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
By the way, Onan's guilt was not that he practiced family planning but rather that he did not honor his brother as was his duty.
Although Paul speaks of the benefits of the single life he tells those who are married to engage in sexual activity frequently.
1 Corinthians 7:2-5 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Nobody has brought it up yet, but overpopulation is a myth. There is plenty of place on this earth that is not inhabited at all, people choose to live in close proximity to one another for economic reasons. The result of the overpopulation myth, and the anti-family pro-career thinking can be found in nominally Christian Europe which is being overrun by Muslims because they are reproducing.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Are you saying that careerism is always anti-family?Originally Posted by Chuck
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
If anyone is a careerist or a communist or a capitalist or anything other than a Christian, that is idolatry. A man should certainly seek ways to best provide for his family which certainly may involve a career but he shouldn't be a careerist. The high rate of women entering the work force has resulted in the high divorce rate of our present day (and men are the one's who are primarily to blame for this, they saw the opportunity to make their women do all the housework while still providing income and pursued it). It may be necessary at times for a woman to work outside of the home, but this should be the exception rather than the norm. 1 Tim. 2:15 provides us with the norm. We ought not let our wives become enslaved to careers which severely restrict their multi-faceted abilities. They are far too valuable and too good at far too many things to assign them to a single task that they must do from day to day.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
How is that? I agree with the Objectivist notion of a capitalist, namely an adherent of capitalism (which is to say laissez-faire, not mixed economy à la western style), which I most definitely am. I fail to see how the two are opposed to each other.
Why not? There's nothing in the Bible that says a man can't focus on his career for a couple of years before having a family.A man should certainly seek ways to best provide for his family which certainly may involve a career but he shouldn't be a careerist.
Now that's a very gross simplification don't you think? As with any other thing in this world there are numerous reasons as to why this happened. Besides, why would it be wrong for a woman to work? I don't think 1 Tim. 2:15 states any norm at all, besides what Gill says on the matter perhaps. It's a personal matter, women can choose to work or not, it's up to them.The high rate of women entering the work force has resulted in the high divorce rate of our present day
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
I apologize. I thought I was clear enough, but I'll be more direct. There is nothing wrong with basic capitalist ideas, but there is a problem when someone defines who they are by being a capitalist.
If men intended to be career driven rather than family driven they probably shouldn't get married. Part of the purpose of marriage is to bring forth covenant seed. I don't think that on the last day that career is a good answer for failing to do this.Why not? There's nothing in the Bible that says a man can't focus on his career for a couple of years before having a family.
I don't think its an oversimplification at all. It's not true in every instance, but it is what happened in general. If you read G.K. Chesterton's book "What's Wrong with the World" you will find that these are the exact things he warned against and the result is even worse than he predicted. The modern career-driven woman is no longer dependent upon her husband for income and is spending a good deal of time interacting with men at work. At times, due to the fact that these situations can cause a couple to grow further apart and be more and more dependent from one another, the wife will actually spend more time with men at work than with her own husband. It is impossible for the two to cleave to one another and be one flesh in such circumstances. We even see people going on separate vacations now.Now that's a very gross simplification don't you think? As with any other thing in this world there are numerous reasons as to why this happened. Besides, why would it be wrong for a woman to work? I don't think 1 Tim. 2:15 states any norm at all, besides what Gill says on the matter perhaps. It's a personal matter, women can choose to work or not, it's up to them.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Dear Chuck,
Are these views that you have embraced as your own, or are you merely expressing them to seem controversial ?
1.
If men intended to be career driven rather than family driven they probably shouldn't get married. Part of the purpose of marriage is to bring forth covenant seed.
2.
The modern career-driven woman is no longer dependent upon her husband for income and is spending a good deal of time interacting with men at work. At times, due to the fact that these situations can cause a couple to grow further apart and be more and more dependent from one another, the wife will actually spend more time with men at work than with her own husband. It is impossible for the two to cleave to one another and be one flesh in such circumstances. We even see people going on separate vacations now.
If these are ideas you share, it is possible that you are really not facing up to the pressures of life as it is in our world, today. Earning enough money to give a child a future in today's world (2006) requires both parents to work, or at least one, whoever earns the most. The stereo types of the bygone era you are referring to, no longer apply. 'Bringing forth covenant seed' and 'It is impossible for the two to cleave to one another and be one flesh in such circumstances'; do not address the pressures of the real world.
First of all, Eric, amen!
I totally agree with that, and this is what I'm getting at as well. First, you spend a few years on your career, and then you get a family when you're done with it. Using myself as an example, my dream is to be a doctor, which means I would be busy with studies sometime into my mid-30s. Obviously, it wouldn't be very good to have family other than a spouse, until then.
Is he a Christian? Then I probably won't read it. I very rarely read "religious" literature because the authors are 99.5% chance to be churchian traditionalists, more interested in promoting and defending a certain social order rather than focusing their attention on loving and trusting Jesus. That, IMO, is much more important than anything else. Anyway...If you read G.K. Chesterton's book "What's Wrong with the World" you will find that these are the exact things he warned against and the result is even worse than he predicted.
You say that as if it were a bad thing?The modern career-driven woman is no longer dependent upon her husband for income
Why is this a problem? Obviously if your woman is chained to the stove not knowing any other man than you and her father, obviously she'll think everything about you is fabulous, but that's not an informed decision. I'd rather have a wife who chose me over all the men she ever met at work, at school, at night clubs and whatever, than having chose me over her male relatives.and is spending a good deal of time interacting with men at work.
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
Aren't they a band from the 80's who come from a land down under?
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I don't see why the Biblical examples would no longer apply? How do you draw a line in such an instance? It seems that if say they no longer apply we are letting the culture influence the church way too much.
Why would it be necessary for both parents to work in order to give a child a future in today's world? What is it that must be purchased that is so important that requires both parents to work? I understand that there are situations in which the financial situation is so bad that both parents may need to work. But in most instances both choose to work so that they can support their SUV and their boat and whatever else. There are tons of way to minimize spending on food and housing which is all a person really financially needs. Homeschool materials aren't dirt cheap so I suppose if it were really necessary a woman could spend a couple months out of the year working to raise the money for the homeschooling books. But in general, I don't think both parents NEED to work. In alot of situations I've seen personally, the family ends up spending more on child care and other related expenses than the mother makes at her job. Another family I know really could get by pretty easily with just the father working but they of course just bought a new sports car so she has to work to support her new sports car.
Food and housing is (proportionate to income of course) probably cheaper than its ever been. I really don't think we are so different or that we shouldn't be filled with the same joy to bring forth covenant seed that our forefathers were.
Chesterton was an anti-Calvinistic Roman Catholic. But he was a great thinker and says things in a thought provoking way. I don't read him because I always agree with him but because he makes me think about things in different ways than I had before. His writings on women voting are particularly interesting.
We can't live our lives with the modern lie that men and women are exactly the same. God has thankfully designed each differently and for different roles.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Yes, but for what roles? I take it that you mean that the man's role is to supply for the family financially and the woman's is to raise children. That may have been true 10,000 years ago, but not now, it's a useless order. Men and women are equally well equipped to function in the labor market, so if we are to use mere examples of what works to define gender roles, then obviously "providing" is not a role for either sex, because both sexes are equally able to do that. Actually I can't seem to think of one instance where there are God-given gender roles, except biologically determined such. Most gender roles that conservative Christian denominations embrace are merely tradition and are not dictated or implied in Scripture.
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
I guess so mate. The comment you quoted was Chuck's.Aren't they a band from the 80's who come from a land down under?
Dear Chuck,
I can now understand why your thinking is so romanist. Too much of GK's point of view is bound to warp the soundness that is achieved from meditating upon the Word of God. Psalm 1
You never gave any biblical examples, just expressed some of your theories.
Last edited by katoikei; 07-15-2006 at 05:36 PM.
katoikei:
That's right, if a Roman Catholic says something it must be wrong. So if they teach the Trinity, that's an evil Romanist doctrine. The fact is that the Roman Catholics for whatever reason (in spite of their abominable teachings forbidding priests to marry) have preserved the Biblical teaching on the family longer than Protestants have. If you asked Protestant about the family structure 100 years ago, there would have been very little disagreement with Roman Catholics, but us wonderful Protestants with our "enlightened" thinking have changed dramatically.
Jack Daw:
God's order is not useless and it is also the man's job to raise children. The woman in the end may end up doing much of the actual work (although men should spend a good deal of time doing this instead of watching TV or hanging out at the bar as well). But the man has the federal responsibility for the spiritual well-being and sins of the family. That is why the Bible says that although Eve ate of the fruit first, Adam bore the responsibility. Once again, how and where do you draw the line? How do you keep from saying things like, "Well homosexuality may have been sinful thousands of years ago when it was tied in with various religious cults but now if two men want to live in a monogamous relationship with one another, surely Paul doesn't deal with that directly."
I never said that no women are capable of performing the duties of various jobs. The question is should they? I do notice from various women who have served in supervisery roles, that they do tend to get more emotional than males do. I'll end with one of my favorite Chesterton quotes:
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Dear Chuck,
If you had the option of drinking out of a fresh well, would you drink out of a poisoned one. If you want to scratch around in the garbage can for truth; go ahead. I found nothing of worth in the teachings of Roman Catholicism, be it past, present or future. Search the Scriptures instead of the writings of heretics and so called saints. If you have learned anything from the Reformation, it should be this one fact. Sola Scriptura.
Of course not, and that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: Just like God created and maintained the existence of some animals only to eventually have them extinct, he created certain conditions in life that were meant to pass; for example, nomadic life, lack of water, animal- and man-driven energy sources, etc etc...
What exactly does that mean?But the man has the federal responsibility for the spiritual well-being and sins of the family.
What verse is that? Regardless, the way you put it sounds very much like something pointing to Christ, who as head of the ekklesia bore the responsibility for our sins...That is why the Bible says that although Eve ate of the fruit first, Adam bore the responsibility.
Also, could you tell me what practical implications this "federal responsibility" would have? Like, if my kids sin, I'm responsible for those sins and not my children? Don't get it...
No there's no correlation there. First of all of course, gays can marry all they like and God wouldn't care, it's the practice of laying with a man as one would with a woman that's wrong, and this is clearly stated doctrine. What's not stated doctrine are certain gender roles advocated by Christian denominations today (and you too, I take it), many of which are remnants of an old order. Not that people who are comfortable in what today would be considered old family relations should force themselves into newer ones merely for the sake of being modern, but likewise those who find themselves in modern families upon conversion needn't force themselves into older family relation orders.how and where do you draw the line? How do you keep from saying things like, "Well homosexuality may have been sinful thousands of years ago when it was tied in with various religious cults but now if two men want to live in a monogamous relationship with one another, surely Paul doesn't deal with that directly."
That may be very true, and I'm not saying men and women are equal at all in their behaviour, but I'm saying many of the differences are not inherent characteristics resultant of differing levels of different hormones, but of coercive traditions. And should they? Well, unless you can find Scripture against it, it's all up to each individual woman.I never said that no women are capable of performing the duties of various jobs. The question is should they? I do notice from various women who have served in supervisery roles, that they do tend to get more emotional than males do.
For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Ps. 40:12)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks