A commenter here (Elena) left a link in the comments section that (in a nutshell) says that our Christian marriages must reflect the church's marriage to God (so far, I agree). To go further (relate it to birth control), God would never use contraception in His marriage to the church, therefore we must never use birth control either. This theology (study of God) does not address the difference between artificial birth control and Natural Family Planning.
Actually, I fully accept Philothea Rose's view on God's marriage and our marriage...I just followed her reasoning to its logical conclusion...read on.
This is, primarily, mental Onanism. Fun, with little hope of producing anything.
Anyway, given that the way God increases His family is through salvation, the linked post connects contraception with sotierology. This argument actually strengthens the idea that God has a permissive will when it comes to family planning - and that God is a Calvinist (actually, the correct way of looking at the grammar - that Calvin's theology of sotierology is correct).
I'm going to look at this from both a Calvinist and Arminian/Catholic view of salvation.
This is premise I'm using - either you are conceived here and "born" when you enter heaven, or you are both conceived and fully born into the faith here.
1) (everybdy). We all recognize that God works in real and specific ways, and at very specific times in order to bring us to Him. If we fall upon our faith in His timing, is He not planning the time of "conception"? This supports family planning...however...
1) (Arminian/Catholic) If the way God increases His family is through salvation, and His will is that *everybody* comes to Him - how can you then justify Natural Family Planning? If God wants every single person possible to come into His family, how can a couple who says that artifical birth control is wrong, justify *not* wanting every single person possible to come into their family? I don't think you can. If you want your marriage to truly reflect God's marriage, you must strive to have as many babies as you possibly can. The Natural Family Planning thing does not reflect God's marriage.
2) (Calvinist) If the way God increases His family through salvation, and you believe in election (some are chosen, some are not), those who are "hardened", those who are prepared for destruction - the objects of God's wrath...these are never conceived. Faith is a gift from God and faith = belief = being conceived into the family of God. In sotierology/contraception theology, those who do not receive the gift of faith (belief/fertility) also do not receive the gift of life (conception/salvation).
3) (Arminian/Catholic) Arminius and the Catholic Church teach that a person can lose their salvation. This is where I think that an Arminian or Catholic should (yes, should find this sotierology/contaception theology absolutely abhorant.
If God gives a person the gift of life (salvation/conception) only to remove it later - is that abortion, or infanticide? The other issue - if God can abort a person that He has given the gift of life to, because He has found them wanting, that supports the idea that it is permissible for a couple to abort a baby that is found wanting. Do you really want to go there?
I reject the idea that God supports either abortion or infanticide, when it comes to His marriage and His family, so I must either reject Arminianism/Catholicism or sotierology/contracteption or both.
4) On the flip side, Calvinism, once a child is conceived (saved), they are secure, God will never get rid of them. There will be those who "fall on rocky soil", who never come to belief (I guess you could relate that to a miscarriage). But once you are given the gift of faith, God will not lose you.
So, there here are the points - if you truly want to
- God either is permissive (or even actively supports) family planning, or all family planning is sin, even NFP
- if you believe that the doctrine of election is true, then God specifically plans His family.
- if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, then God supports (and practices) either abortion or infanticide (I reject this)
- If you believe perserverance of the saints - that you cannot lose your salvation, then you believe that God would never abort one of His children.
Conclusion - if you're a Calvinist, you're okay with God practicing family planning. If God's okay with family planning, I am too...
If you believe that a person can lose his or her salvation, you are also okay with God practicing family planning, only in a much more disturbing way.
Taken to its logical conclusion, either this theology does not work...or Calvin was right.
Elena
God either is permissive (or even actively supports) family planning, or all family planning is sin, even NFP
But God understands that family planning may be necessary for grave and serious reasons. The scriptures say a man must take care of his family. What God is NOT okay with is perverting the sex act by enjoying the pleasures while DELIBERATELY avoiding the natural consequence of potential conception.
- if you believe that the doctrine of election is true, then God specifically plans His family (practices birth control).
I don't even know what the doctrine of election is.
- if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, then God supports (and practices) either abortion or infanticide (I reject this)
No. I believe that when we lose our salvation, it is because we have chosen to do so. God gives us free will. We can chose to reject Him and his will. It's not abortion or infanticide it is more analogous to committing suicide.
f you believe perseverance of the saints - that you cannot lose your salvation, then you believe that God would never abort one of His children.
Answered above.
a Calvinist, I'm perfectly fine with the sotierology/contraception connection. If God's okay with contraception, I am too.
Well, I find Calvinism to have some big flaws in it. It's clear that God is NOT okay with contraception, but you're not ready to see that yet.
Ellen
But God understands that family planning may be necessary for grave and serious reasons.
Chapter and verse on that, please?
What God is NOT okay with is perverting the sex act by enjoying the pleasures while DELIBERATELY avoiding the natural consequence of potential conception.
And we're back to the man that deliberately disobeyed his father, dishonored his dead brother, entered into a covenant falsely and defrauded his Leverite wife.
God gives us free will
Chapter on verse on that?
We are either a slave to Christ, or a slave to the dragon...our will is never free, we are always controlled by something.
Well, I find Calvinism to have some big flaws in it. It's clear that God is NOT okay with contraception, but you're not ready to see that yet.
Well, I find Catholicism to have some big flaws in it. It's clear that God is okay with contraception, but your're not ready to see that yet.
Elena
You're right - I'm not. I did TONS of research in my 30s on Catholicism when my sister left the church to become an Evangelical Christian (she back to the Catholic Church later)and I am convinced logically, historically, and theologically as well as spiritually that the Catholic church is the one true church.
I also find lots of problems with sola scriptura (a doctrine that is only 500 some years old BTW and invented by Martin Luther.) For starters, sola scriptura isn't even scriptural!
But that's another debate!
Ellen
What was that quote from Proverbs about only being interested in stating opinions? By your own words, you are not ready to seriously look at the other side of this argument, you only seek to place the yoke of your law on others.
I teach freedom, unless law is in the Bible
You teach law, unless freedom is in the Bible
As far a Catholicism, I'll state my beliefs (some time) but will not debate it - there is not even enough common ground for that.
Elena
Oh Ellen, I am definitely serious about looking at the other side. So far nothing you have said is so compelling or persuasive that I can not find a reason to further investigate that path. Most of it I have encountered many times over the past 6 years or so.
Sola scriptura is not freedom- it's chaos. That why there are 30,000 divisions in Protestantism and growing every year.
The scriptures say the pillar of truth - is the CHURCH. The "bible alone" is not scriptural.
Feel free to state your views on Catholocism (are you an ex Catholic?) any time. I look forward to it.
Ellen
Frankly, that debate isn't high enough on my "to do" list to interest me. And I'm rapidly losing interest in this one, due to the double talk of "I'm sure I'm right" and "I'll seriously look"
Elena
Apologetics Ellen. If you had something, I imagine you would have used it.
Ellen
Time, Elena. I have something, I'm just choosing priorities just now.
I could, however, bow to my brother-in-law's words, "I used to be Catholic, but now I'm saved."
(For the record, I have never bought into any notion that salvation and Catholicism have to be mutually exclusive.)
I said it isn't high on my "to do" list. I'll add it right after delivering my daughter to her aunt's house for the week, maintaining a house and home on my own, working full time (although it's a very fun job), etc.
You'll either honor that, or you won't.
What'll it be?
Elena
So you are an ex-Catholic? Just wondering.
The beauty of these cyber discussion is that you can enter and exit them at your pleasure. Some bloggers make a "See ya later" or "slow blogging" note, others just disappear for a while. No problem. You just pop in when you can and if folks are still on your topic, fine. If it moves on, usually that's fine too. Have a good week.
Ellen
No, I'm not an ex-Catholic.
Phil in CA
I don't even know what the doctrine of election is.
Elena,
The doctrine of election comes from the Biblical use of the word "elect" to refer to Christians. Jesus used the term, the apostles used it in their greeting, etc. Simply put, the doctrine of election says that God, in His sovereignty, has chosen who is to be saved, and thus who He will regenerate from their "dead" spiritual state (that is, the natural state) so that they can understand the Gospel and be saved. This is not a "coined" doctrine or term, as word "elect(ion)" is commonly used throughout the New Testament. Consider these verses very carefully:
Matthew 24:22
And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Matthew 24:24
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:31
And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mark 13:20
And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mark 13:22
False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mark 13:27
And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Luke 18:7
And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?
Romans 8:33
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Romans 9:11
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--
Romans 11:7
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Romans 11:28
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
1 Timothy 5:21
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Peter 1:10
Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
2 John 1:1
The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
2 John 1:13
The children of your elect sister greet you.
Now, given that we believers are consistently called "elect", one must ask: Are we God's "elect" or are we his "electors"? Did we chose Him? No, as Jesus taught, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you..." [John 15:16] This absolutely strikes at the heart of our fiercely independent, self-determinng modern pride where "choice" and self-sufficiency are idols. But the Scripture is clear that we were "dead" in our sin -- not alseep or groggy, dead. Reformed (aka Calvinist believers), non-Calvinists and even Catholics believe the basic idea that man is in a fallen state. However, the question comes down to: How far did man fall? A little, that he might still be spiritually conscious enought to discern spiritual things an accept the Gospel in spite of his fallen condition? No. Man fell totally and utter (hence the doctrine of "total depravity). The "natural man" (unsaved/unregenerate) "cannot discern" the things of God, they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14). Some reply, "No, no, it's not people can't come to Christ, it's simply that they won't. Christ refutes this, by teaching: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Our Lord did not say, "...no one will..." but rather "...no one can..." and thuse established and confirms as our Lord that we, as we are in our natural fallen state, cannot come to Him "unless the Father who sent me draws him".
Finally, note: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as HE CHOSE US in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love, HE PREDESTINED US for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of HIS WILL [not ours], to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved." [Eph 1]
Our Father chose us before the foundation of the world, gave us life in the Spirit to follow after Him, all "to the praise of His glorious grace" That, in a nutshell, is election.
blepein
Ellen, I stand with you on the doctrines of Sovereign Grace. You have a very interesting down to earth blog on life as a Christian Lady. You defend the reformed position well and you can stand between me and the sceptic anytime. As a reformed baptist I do have a few differnces with you but I stand with you on the core essentials of the faith. After reading your blog for several days I admire you and am proud to call you my sister in the Lord.
Ellen
It is the core that counts - my entire family is Wesleyan/Arminian - so I'm the "dark sheep" (lol). Actually, my mom and dad (and my husband's sisters - we're still close) really like my church. So that's a plus!