At the very end of the discussion on Mrs. Swoffer’s blog on things Quiverful vs. contraception, she links an article as, “was the perfect conclusion.” She also suggests, “an article by Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason (apologetics organization) is referenced in the Piper link.”
Unfortunately while those articles are brought forth, front and center, Marla “just wanted to make sure people check out that article, but please don’t argue it here.” The last QF discussion was terminated, right where she “wanted it to end,” with this article.
Sigh…I’m so glad I have my own blog! I wasn’t quite done with it yet!
First from the article by Rev. Piper, of Bethlehem Baptist says:
DG and Bethlehem Baptist have no formal position on birth control, but John Piper and most of the pastors on staff believe that non-abortive forms of birth control are permissible. The Bible nowhere forbids birth control, either explicitly or implicitly, and we should not add universal rules that are not in Scripture (cf. Psalm 119:1, 9 on the sufficiency of Scripture
As I commented on Mrs. Swoffer’s blog, I just find any position that points to scripture and says that without even a nod at Genesis 38 9-10 to be somewhat disingenuous! There is a reference in scripture; he simply skipped over it! The three main points made in the article are rather superficial. For a deep look at this topic, nothing beats John Paul II’s Theology of the Body!
But secondly, I did take a look at Gregory Koukl’s article. He says,
“Well, what do we have revealed in Scriptures pertaining to birth control? Nothing, ladies and gentlemen. We have one reference in Genesis 38 that some have taken to be a reference to birth control where Onan spills his seed on the ground, coitus interruptus. He withdraws in the act of intercourse, ejaculates on the ground and God strikes him dead. Now the big question is, why does God strike him dead?, I’ll tell you why. I don’t know. I’m not sure. I haven’t studied the passage. But if someone says that God struck him dead because he practiced birth control, that strikes me as a very strong punishment for birth control. If that’s what is going on, then God feels very strongly about such a thing, doesn’t He?”
Yes he does. So then I wonder if it is apparent to Mr. Koukle that God feels so strongly in this passage, why he hasn’t bothered to study it? That lack of scholarship loses credibility points with me.
However, the last link on the Piper article is very interesting and doesn’t even get a mention from Mrs. Swoffer. It’s by Scott Klusendorf who comes very close to understanding the Catholic perspective against artificial contraception.
Here is why. Church teaching, following the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, states that sex within marriage is both unitive and procreative. These two aspects of sex cannot be separated without compromising the structure of marital love. Put simply, each act of marital sex must be open (in principle) to the possibility of children. Hence, NABC is not wrong because it leads to an “abortion mentality” (after all, millions of Protestant pro-life advocates use NABC, but would never consider abortion), but because it results in a structural break in the act of marital love.
Now that’s a conclusion that is heading somewhere!
Please browse my Amazon sales and eBay items!