Friday, July 15, 2011

Consensus Patrum

Warren said:

The bible arguments - it has already been demonstrated that those will be rejected regardless.

How would we know that they are going to be rejected if no Biblical arguments have been put forth?

While Onan sinned by breaking the Levetical law he also sinned by spilling his seed. This interpretation carries the weight of virtual any father who wrote about it.

What's missing from this is an exegetical argument. The appeal to consensus as binding and obligatory was already addressed, both in terms of being a fallacy and in terms of violating a commitment to sola Scriptura.

Of course, the universal consensus (if true) would carry some measure of weight, just not the level of weight you and Urbani seem to want it to carry.

I wonder how the consensus of the forbearers of the faith can so cavalierly be dismissed.

I explicitly said that a consensus might very well be taken into account and serve as grounds for caution. That is not "cavalier" in any sense of the word.

However, perhaps it is sufficient to note that Catholics regularly dismiss the "consensus" of generations of the church fathers on various issues, appealing to later fathers when the consensus of earlier ones does not support their position. That is routinely called an appeal to "development," but it is functionally the same behavior you are criticizing here.

You also need to demonstrate that the consensus is really addressing the same bioethical issues we have today. A critical concern with discussion of contraception in the ancient world is whether those church fathers who spoke to the subject thought all forms of contraception ended in an abortion due to what they thought was contained in sperm--a fully formed man. We need to take into account their understanding of biology; we cannot automatically assume their condemnations are directly and strictly applicable to how contraception is practiced in light of the discoveries of modern science.

(If I have the time, I might do a more detailed post looking at the early church's understanding of contraception.)

By the way, I am not so sure the consensus of the fathers is in support of NFP either. My understanding is that even NFP was discouraged as "contraceptive."

There is contention from Matthew that Urbani's claim about church history is unfounded

No, my issue with Urbani's claim is that he merely asserted it. The burden of proof is quite clear here.

Can Matthew or anybody else cite any church father or council document in support of purposefully spilling seed or contraception? If you can't, and he can quote fathers to the contrary, I think his point stands.

You are shifting the burden of proof. Not all that "charitable," I might observe.

There is an elementary distinction between citing fathers that approve of contraception and demonstrating that, as Urbani claimed, we are "expressly going against the teaching of every church father and even Reformed fathers and the christian faith for about 2,000 years."

If you want to temper and qualify Urbani's claim, do so. (I certainly would.) But a qualified claim still requires its own set of supporting evidence, such as citing relevant patristic scholarship. And the more you qualify the claim, the less force it has.

That prior to the 19th century the Catholic Church did not have many statements against birth control only highlights that prior to the 19th century most Christians understood this in good faith. There was no need for proclamations.

That imputes to many church fathers a stance for which you have not provided evidence. If a father did not speak to the issue, then he did not speak to the issue.

I don't think Urbani needs to prove that EVERY church father wrote against it. That would be ludicrous yet it seems to be the standard against which he is held.

If Urbani makes a ludicrous claim, he must defend a ludicrous claim. That, I might add, is hardly our fault. Or does your concept of "charity" require that we be responsible for the errors of our opponents?

Lastly, this is my first time to the blog but if name calling and simple lack of charity is the way visitors with differing viewpoints are treated here than no wonder people ‘bow out.’

It was fairly obvious that there was a "bowing out" due to a lack of substantive argumentation in support of the assertions made against contraception.

As for "name calling," that turns on your conception of "charity" and the norms of discourse--norms we need to have informed by Scripture, rather than our culture of non-offense and affirmation. There are plenty of examples of harsh language, even what would be called "name calling," employed throughout the Scriptures. Obviously there are important nuances that play out in practical ways, such as a distinction between how we address a defiant teacher of a false Gospel in public and an earnest, non-Christian seeker in private, and certainly "name calling" can be used out of an attempt to destroy another person, rather than an attempt to lovingly issue a strong rebuke. But just as there are potential dangers in utilizing the harsh rebuke, there are potential dangers in trying to be too kind and gentle. The emphasis on "charity" can become a pretext for excusing gross errors or the promotion of sanctimonious piety. It also serves as an escape hatch, where the moment someone engages in less than "nice" behavior they are no longer a credible opponent and all of their arguments can be summarily dismissed.

98 comments:

  1. Matthew Schultz wrote:

    "However, perhaps it is sufficient to note that Catholics regularly dismiss the 'consensus' of generations of the church fathers on various issues, appealing to later fathers when the consensus of earlier ones does not support their position."

    For those interested in some examples of widespread patristic beliefs that are rejected by Roman Catholics, see here.

    Matthew also wrote:

    "As for 'name calling,' that turns on your conception of 'charity' and the norms of discourse--norms we need to have informed by Scripture, rather than our culture of non-offense and affirmation. There are plenty of examples of harsh language, even what would be called 'name calling,' employed throughout the Scriptures."

    And the fathers (Polycarp's comments about Marcion, Hippolytus' comments about the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matthew.

    I am flattered.

    How would we know that they are going to be rejected if no Biblical arguments have been put forth?

    Is it your contention that biblical arguments against contraception have never been put forth or do you merely take issue that a biblical argument sufficient enough for you was not taken up in the other combox?

    The appeal to consensus as binding and obligatory was already addressed, both in terms of being a fallacy and in terms of violating a commitment to sola Scriptura.

    If you read such scholars as Keith Mathison (See Shape of Sola Scriptura) you'll note that 'sola scriptura' is not properly understood apart from the tradition of the church. In the case of a Reformed Presbyterian/Baptist that tradition includes the fathers of the Reformation who were in most cases expressly against contraception of any kind and even provided exegesis of this teaching from scripture.

    Of course, the universal consensus (if true) would carry some measure of weight, just not the level of weight you and Urbani seem to want it to carry.

    Could you flesh this out? If we can find dozens of church fathers teaching against contraception and none teaching for it is that a consensus? Or do you need at least a certain % of church fathers to weigh in on something before you have a consensus? And, what degree would that carry?

    Also, I think you gloss what the Catholic Church teaches as development. No true development is anything like the complete overturning of thought on contraception that happened in the early 19th century. Development does not reverse any previously held doctrine but only expresses it more fully. If you can provide a singular example of the Catholic Church 'overturning' or doing a 180 on something like the 1930 Lambeth decisions that I would like to see it.

    Let's keep this to several points at once. I see you targeted biological issues e.g. that the fathers reasons for preaching against contraception was based on them not understanding how babies are made etc which I would be happy to discuss.

    As for name calling and lack of charity - this is all too common in religious forums and for reasons I do not understand most prevalent in intra-christian dialog. There is really no reason for calling somebody a 'Roman drone' or anything like that. Are you defending that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If we can find dozens of church fathers teaching against contraception and none teaching for it is that a consensus?"

    The fact that particular fathers held to one position or another is interesting, but what is of more importance is the quality of their exegesis and argumentation. The fact that a church father held to a position is no guarantee of anything. For example, Augustine held that it was impossible that men lived on the other side of the earth from himself. Likewise Aquinas taught that "spilling seed" was inherently sinful because the medieval understanding of physiology was that the male gamete provided all of the material to produce a human being, we know otherwise today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Warren said:

    Is it your contention that biblical arguments against contraception have never been put forth or do you merely take issue that a biblical argument sufficient enough for you was not taken up in the other combox?

    The context was that thread, although I do not see what this has to do with you claiming that we are going to reject any Biblical arguments given on the subject.

    Urbani had many opportunities to give an exegetical defense of his appeal to Onan. He squandered all of them, favoring a deflection to an alleged consensus of belief on the topic. So perhaps you can forward the missing exposition of the text.

    If you read such scholars as Keith Mathison (See Shape of Sola Scriptura) you'll note that 'sola scriptura' is not properly understood apart from the tradition of the church. In the case of a Reformed Presbyterian/Baptist that tradition includes the fathers of the Reformation who were in most cases expressly against contraception of any kind and even provided exegesis of this teaching from scripture.

    Yes, Mathison's work is useful in many respects, although not without its methodological concerns. I do not see, however, the relevance to my appeal to sola Scriptura. I give tradition a fair hearing. And if you think the arguments of Reformers on this subject are sufficient, bring them to bear for analysis. However, if you think they are merely to be held because they are Reformers, and that sola Scriptura demands and requires that we accept their interpretation without question, then, no, that is not sola Scriptura--it is not faithful to the primacy of Scripture as the Reformers understood the concept.

    Could you flesh this out? If we can find dozens of church fathers teaching against contraception and none teaching for it is that a consensus? Or do you need at least a certain % of church fathers to weigh in on something before you have a consensus? And, what degree would that carry?

    I mentioned what kind of weight it might carry earlier in the previous combox, and we are already discussing another potential problem with this appeal. However, here you seem to be asking not what weight a consensus would carry, but just what my standard of consensus is.

    Obviously it is impossible to give an exact figure. However, what purpose is there in deflecting to my standard of consensus when there is yet to be a historical overview on the subject? Bring the relevant scholarship to bear on the question (such as Constantine did). Present the overall picture of the church fathers on the subject. Then Protestants will have something tangible to interact with.

    Otherwise, an alleged consensus has no practical force for those of us evaluating the issue of contraception. We are left trusting the gratuitous assertions of Urbani or, worse, if we have done even a little research on the subject, left suspecting that Urbani's picture is simplistic, at best.

    (Continued.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, I think you gloss what the Catholic Church teaches as development. No true development is anything like the complete overturning of thought on contraception that happened in the early 19th century. Development does not reverse any previously held doctrine but only expresses it more fully. If you can provide a singular example of the Catholic Church 'overturning' or doing a 180 on something like the 1930 Lambeth decisions that I would like to see it.

    With the tedious, yet necessary, qualification that I am speaking of consensus positions, not held doctrines, that were overturned and their opposites later held as doctrine:

    One prominent example is the immaculate conception of Mary. Early on, it was the consensus of the early church that Christ was the only immaculately conceived being and that Mary was a sinner.

    There is also the non-ecumenical stance of the fathers. Vatican II is something of an about-face in this respect.

    often it seems what is called "development" is allowed to be a contradiction in all but name.

    Jason provided a link to material he has written on the general subject, if you are interested in reading more.

    Let's keep this to several points at once. I see you targeted biological issues e.g. that the fathers reasons for preaching against contraception was based on them not understanding how babies are made etc which I would be happy to discuss.

    Then please do. What makes you think their bioethical concepts map sufficiently onto our categories such that their condemnations of "contraception" can be applied to the modern practice of non-abortive "contraception"?

    As for name calling and lack of charity - this is all too common in religious forums and for reasons I do not understand most prevalent in intra-christian dialog. There is really no reason for calling somebody a 'Roman drone' or anything like that. Are you defending that?

    I gave basic criteria by which we should evaluate "name-calling." But instead of applying that criteria to the example in question and/or evaluating that criteria in light of yours, you seem to be appealing to incredulity.

    And if someone acts and reasons as poorly as Urbani did, his behavior can be called out so that others might have the better sense not to emulate it. Proverbs, for example, certainly takes that approach to fools and foolish behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I don't think Urbani needs to prove that EVERY church father wrote against it. That would be ludicrous yet it seems to be the standard against which he is held."

    I don't think that Urbani needs to present an argument from every church father either. However, the RCC offers a slippery standard as to how much support is necessary from church fathers as opposed to what is claimed.

    Here is one Catholic e-pologist's (Steve Ray) take on the "unanimous consent of the fathers": 'Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have "unanimous consent."'

    Even though a position may only enjoy majority approval (if that) from the fathers, "unanimous" consent may be claimed. That's less than persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue concerning "EVERY father" was that Urbani claimed that we "are expressly going against the teaching of every church father and even Reformed fathers and the christian faith for about 2,000 years." I am holding Urbani to his own standard, which, of course, does not have to be the standard another Catholic tries to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Matthew.

    It is pretty easy to find exegesis already enshrined publicly about the matter of Onan and contraception. If exegesis done by Calvin, Luther, Wesley, the Synod of Dort, Osiander, Cotten Mather and many other Protestant churchmen do not convince you than I doubt I'll convince you.

    Nevertheless, some works do a good job of discussing this from an exegetical standpoint including discussion on Onan. "The Bible and Birth Control" by Purvan (Protestant) is one such work.

    As respect to Onan there are exegetical reasons to believe that an important aspect of Onan's sin was the spilling of his seed on not merely the breaking of the legal code. For instance, the Hebrew author took pains to describe the dirty deed in lurid detail - as if to highlight it and the fact that the penalty for Onan's crime was not death but public humiliation.

    I can't speak for Urbani but I seriously doubt he meant 'every' church father as in 'every church father wrote explicitly against it.' If he meant that, than he is wrong because obviously for that to be true we would have to have express teaching against it from literally every father. Not that it would or should make any difference to somebody in the Sola Scriptura paradigm right EA?

    You said that universal consensus 'carries some weight.' I do think it is germane to the conversation to ask what you mean by that.

    Generally, when I think of universal concensus I do not demand that every single father wrote a treatise on the subject. I think that with birth control, we can see a strong strain of teaching woven through the fathers that it is wrong to frustrate the sexual nature that God has given us whether it be spilling seed on purpose, homosexual acts, masturbation etc. If you think I am wrong than present evidence from the fathers to the contrary, not just appeals to silence on the account of some fathers.

    As for Mary and the Immaculate Conception I think your attempt to draw a comparison fails. For the Immaculate Conception to be analogous to the acceptance of birth control you would have to find a pattern of teaching in the fathers that Mary sinned or that Mary was born in sin (or both). As Catholic theologians view Mary's nature differently than Christ's nature (rightly so) it stands to reason that Christ's sinlessness is spoken of in different terms. In fact, the Immaculate Conception hold that Mary is redeemed by Jesus' work on the cross albeit in a different way through a singular grace.

    Further even with the IC there is a clear 'seed' of the teaching early on in both the east and west: "We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Augustine (Nature and Grace)

    On name calling. I am simply asking you to either condone or rebuke one of the Reformed brothers calling Urbani a 'Roman Drone.' Are you willing to do that? At this point in the exchange you are asking a lot from me but not giving much in return. This is your blog. If you think it was fine for a man to call another man a name like that, than just stand up and say it.

    I think I've given you a good direction to look for the exegesis on Onan you are seeking in Purvan's work. Purvan discusses, an length, Onan and relies on Hebrew scholarship which point to Onan's act as being manifestly sin in God's eyes and not just his intent.

    On biology, I am not convinced that the fathers were all as ignorant about the birds and the bees as is claimed by those here and would like to see an actual argument presented to that effect before chasing that any further.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Augustine (my emphasis):

    "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

    Here are some other Church Father quotes on the issue:
    http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm

    Not that Church Fathers are needed to tell us what is in the natural law.

    I believed contraception was a grave evil for all the 9 years I was a Reformed (PCA) believer. (and not because of Onan) The only difference now for me (as a Catholic) is that like abortion, I no longer think it can be left up to each conscience, and that I am now even more convinced of it. Augustine is correct, If a man has relations with his wife and does something to prevent her from conceiving, he makes her a whore.

    And to compare the seriously disfunctional and quasi-homosexual action of contracepted sex with NFP is ridiculous. NFP is not even having sex, which is specifically recomended by the Apostle. The only similarity between the two is the desire to not conceive for a time. But not wanting to concieve for a valid reason and therefore abstaining from relations is a far cry from the base, homosexual-like rutting that occurs with contraception.

    For instance, my child #5 is coming Sept. 4th, and I will be practicing "NFP" for possibly up to a year after the birth. The doctor has said that my wife needs some extra time in her specific situation. After prayer and consideration, we decided that it is wise for her body to not concieve for medical reasons for a while to prevent a likely (in her case) miscarriage. Not having relations for that time is in no principled way analogous to contracepting. There is no marital act, therefore there is no degrading of the act. In fact, the act is put on a pedestal as it would be for a couple before marriage to abstain.

    But yes, even NFP can be abused. If someone does not want children for the wrong reason, such as saving money for a ferrari, or to save her figure, then it becomes a sin, but not nearly on the same level as contraception, where the marriage act itself is abused.

    Even assuming a barrier method (the only one that can never kill) is used, The act becomes non-unitive (two become one flesh), and thus non sacramental. An act which was meant to show forth the self giving love of Christ for His bride, and in turn to show her trust and willingness to recieve all He is and has, instead becomes blasphemous by seperating the acts emotional and physical pleasure from procreation. But when that is seperated, (which it never is in NFP) the act becomes something entirely different and disgusting. (like purposely vomiting after recieving comunion)

    This is why it was illegal even in the Protestant U.S. till recent times. When Margaret Sanger openned the first birth control clinic in the US in 1916, it was closed by police and she was jailed. We have come a long way baby.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The biology question of "little people": If you notice the Augustine quote I gave, he does not think that. His reasons for despising contraception have nothing to do with supposed ancient scientific views of semen.
    When the fathers give reasons for not liking contraception other than the "little people" reason, I wonder why people acuse them of having that view?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Augustine is correct, If a man has relations with his wife and does something to prevent her from conceiving, he makes her a whore."

    Augustine was wrong. He and the whole Nicene-era church in general were themselves infected by semi-Gnostic or semi-Manichean ideas about the inherent sinfulness of the "fleshly relations".

    I repeat, it's itself a modified form of flesh-despising Manicheanism to claim that the ONLY thing that can "justify" sex is the aim to get children. The Reformation rightly rejected the un-Biblical, semi-Gnostic celibacy-obsessions of the church fathers.

    So the general ban of contraception inevitably had to go the same way as monkery as soon as Protestants discovered that (unlike abortion) contraception does not necessarily involve taking a human life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And whether Luther or Calvin themselves understood it or not, it's an inevitable part of Reformation doctrine of believer's "liberty in Christ" that church authorities are not allowed to peek into the bedrooms of married believers and tell them what to do there. The church has a right to correct only public misbehavior.

    Issues like masturbation are quite literally something that one must settle with God personally. They are not something that one should discuss with officious priestly mediators in the confession box. (What practical advice can celibate priests or monks give about family life anyways?)

    One thing that used to make Protestants detest the RC sacrament of confession was the way it allowed strangers to gain information about intimate family affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Even assuming a barrier method (the only one that can never kill) is used, The act becomes non-unitive (two become one flesh), and thus non sacramental."

    Interesting idea, and yet all this all seems like a respectable Trad-RC version of Tantric sex magic - attributing sacramental significance to the methods of copulation.

    I could make further comments about the casuistic details of this sexual legalism, but that might get a bit too graphic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Warren wrote:

    "Nevertheless, some works do a good job of discussing this from an exegetical standpoint including discussion on Onan. "The Bible and Birth Control" by Purvan (Protestant) is one such work."

    And the "lurid detail" argument is Purvan's strongest argument?

    Here are some comments from my work here- http://vanberean.blogspot.com/2009/09/sin-of-onan.html

    Refusing to fertilize your sister-in-law is not necessarily a sin.
    Onan was not required to fertilize her.
    There was no commandment.

    Yet Onan made a commitment.
    A commitment to his sister-in-law. A commitment to his father.
    A tacit commitment to his heavenly Father.
    Yet what he gave his sister-in-law was mere incest. The progeny that he promised his father was a mere lie.
    And his contemptuous spew was held in contempt by his heavenly Father.
    Onan's contempt consumed him. Onan's procreation was pro-rouged. Onan's own creation was recused.

    Now some may think that Onan's sin was that of masturbation. That getting his rocks off violated a boundary stone.
    Yet, as the passage suggests- it was his intent, not his contents that were at issue here.
    It was his heart, not his hand that was at issue here.
    It was not his hand that was not right. It was his heart that was not right.

    The Bible does not speak of masturbation as being sinful. It speaks of the heart as being sinful.
    It does not speak of orgasm as being sinful. It speaks of orgies as being sinful.


    Warren, I welcome your comments on this...

    ReplyDelete
  15. And the "lurid detail" argument is Purvan's strongest argument?

    No, it is not the sum argument. It is a lengthy book and do not personally have time to present every exegetically that can conceivably demanded.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "One thing that used to make Protestants detest the RC sacrament of confession was the way it allowed strangers to gain information about intimate family affairs."

    Yes, you've this one right - almost. Protestantism is a very "comfortable" religion. Everything that is wrong in Protestantism can be traced to this element - the individual seeks and does what is comfortable or convenient. Whether it is doctrine, worship, prayer, evangelism, church govenment, sacramental practices, public life - the Protestant always does that which he finds convenient and comfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And so again we find ourselves in a situation where our "sex for children only" friends make extremely weak cases using the exegesis of hand-picked sources rather then appealing to scripture themselves.

    They also fail to repudiate NFP as identical in intent to the use of "contraception". Apparently intent doesn't rate next to activity.

    Apparently the entirety of the Song of Solomon is profusion by "shameful lovers" and "harlots" and contrary to what the St. Paul taught, the marriage bed really is defiled.

    Perhaps one of our "sex is a duty" friends would be kind enough to point us to where the scriptures teach that husbands may have a shameful "lust for their wives". Perhaps they might additionally be able to quote Augustine lecturing St. Paul about how he was counseling believers to sin in 1 Corinthians 7.

    I suppose we could all be a great deal more pious if we treated all of God's good gifts as duties, laws to be obeyed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, I can still see Dozie's fairly ignorant comment under the "www.blogger.com" URL through which I submit comments.

    No matter to me, as ignorance is only as offensive as one allows it to be, but perhaps the admins don't like their will to be frustrated by mere software.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another administrator can delete Dozie's comment if he wants to. I'm not going to. I want to leave it up, since it’s such a good illustration of Dozie's character and the character of others like him. He tells us that "the Protestant always does that which he finds convenient and comfortable". As usual, Dozie offers no supporting argument for his claim. He ignores the counterarguments to his claim, even when they're obvious and abundant. And he's making his claim in a post in a forum in which he's been banned. He's not supposed to be posting here, but he does it anyway. I suppose that's what "he finds convenient and comfortable". He breaks the rules of the forum in order to make an unsupported claim about how unethical Protestants "always" are.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Warren,

    If we interpret the Biblical documents and other relevant literature as we would any other historical source, it appears that the sinlessness of Mary wasn't advocated by any extant source in the earliest centuries of church history. During the same timeframe, we find multiple sources in the West and East either directly or indirectly referring to Mary as a sinner. Some, such as Tertullian and Origen, go as far as to name particular sins they think Mary committed. Augustine comments that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human and tells us that his view is consistent with the catholic faith. Earlier, Basil of Caesarea makes similar comments. Sometimes people think a belief is more widespread than it actually is. They assume that something popular in their region or the regions they're familiar with is popular elsewhere, even though it isn't. But the sinlessness of Mary was at least unpopular enough in their day that men like Basil and Augustine could, rightly or wrongly, perceive their rejection of the concept as so widespread. Around their time and later, we even find some Roman bishops denying Mary's sinlessness. For documentation of these points and others relevant to this subject, see my posts here and here.

    In my first post in this thread, I linked to some material on this blog that documents widespread rejection of other Catholic beliefs among the church fathers. The earliest fathers seem to have disagreed with Catholicism on Purgatory, prayer to the dead, and many other subjects. In some cases, like the assumption of Mary, their silence on the subject has to be reconciled with Catholicism's decision to affirm the concept. How do you justify the transition from silence to affirmation? Or, in a case like that of Epiphanius, how do you justify the transition from his claim that nobody knows what happened to Mary to Catholicism's claim to know? Catholics frequently contradict the fathers, speak where they were silent, or claim to know what they said wasn't known.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "They also fail to repudiate NFP as identical in intent to the use of "contraception". Apparently intent doesn't rate next to activity."

    I specifically said that the desire to not conceive was a similarity between NFP and other forms of contraception. The intent is not what makes contraception evil per se, because there can be good reasons to not want to conceive (I also gave some examples of those reasons).

    "...where our "sex for children only" friends make extremely weak cases..."

    That is not what I beleive or am saying. My problem is not with there being other things involved in the marital act, it is with seperating the act of procreation from the rest of those things. You folks seem to be glossing over that seperation.

    It is that seperation that makes the wife a whore, not the fact that there is pleasure involved, or other things besides procreation involved. The purposeful seperation and isolation of the pleasurable aspects and suppresion of the procreative aspect is what makes it unatural. In biblical terms, the two are not becoming one flesh, and therefore it is a disordered and sinful act that is going against the natural use designed by God.

    The similarity with homosexuality is striking. Homosexuality is also a seperation of the procreative and unitive act from pleasure.

    "Apparently the entirety of the Song of Solomon is profusion by "shameful lovers" and "harlots" and contrary to what the St. Paul taught, the marriage bed really is defiled."

    What are you even saying? who here has said the Song of Songs is bad, or that pleasure in sex is bad? No one here has said that as far as I know, and I for one (with the Church) certainly dont believe that. It is just a weak straw man. What I have consistently focused on is the seperation of the pleasure from the procreative.

    Purposely removing and/or isolating any aspect of the marital act is a perversion, whether isolating the pleasure, or isolating the procreation in some prudish way, or isolating the visual imagery (pornography) etc, etc. Whether by contraception, homosexuality, oral sex, masturbation, or abortion, isolating and/or removing certain aspects of the act is an intrinsic moral evil. This is proved from scripture (the two become one flesh), and it is apparent from the natural order just as the disordered nature of homosexuality is. The fact that we have to even discuss it show (in my view) how far Protestantism is degenerating for it to now gleefully accept something she would have just 50 years ago thought to be obviously morally repugnant.

    And it sadens me, because this should be an area where Protestants and Catholics can engage the culture together as brothers (as is often done with the child murder issue in our cuture). But when women who are on the pill, and are killing their own children and yet wantto protest abortion, the hipocrisy is just outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "The fact that we have to even discuss it show (in my view) how far Protestantism is degenerating for it to now gleefully accept something she would have just 50 years ago thought to be obviously morally repugnant."

    Tu quoque, would you like to open this big can of worms and explain why the post-Vatican II Roman church has repudiated so many traditional, venerable (and bigoted) RC positions with its easygoing ecumenism and liberal-leftist policies?

    Many Trad-Cats have been so embarrassed by Vatican II liberalism that they have become Sedevacantists.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And speaking of Sedevacantists, here is a piece where these purists denounce the NFP with the same guilt-tripping gusto as David Meyer denounces contraception:

    Natural Family Planning is Evil


    "If family planners had their way, there would be no St. Bernadette of Lourdes who was born from a jail flat; nor St. Therese of Lisieux, who came from a sickly mother who lost three children in a row; nor St. Ignatius Loyola, who was the thirteenth of thirteen children;(8) and most certainly not a St. Catherine of Siena, who was the twenty-fifth child in a family of twenty-five children!(9) (Examples of Saints who were the last of many children could probably be multiplied for pages). St. Catherine of Siena and the rest of the Saints who would have been phased out of existence by NFP will rise in judgment against the NFP generation. Natural Family Planners would have been sure to inform St. Catherine’s mother that there was no need having twenty-five children (let alone five), and that she was wasting her time going through all those pregnancies.

    Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls who have been denied a chance at Heaven because of this selfish behavior. The only thing that can foil the will of the all-powerful God is the will of His puny creatures; for He will not force offspring on anyone, just as He will not violate anyone’s free will. NFP is a crime of incalculable proportions."

    ReplyDelete
  24. I specifically said that the desire to not conceive was a similarity between NFP and other forms of contraception. The intent is not what makes contraception evil per se, because there can be good reasons to not want to conceive (I also gave some examples of those reasons).

    Then my comments do not apply to you. Clearly you believe that there are justifiable reasons not to conceive. Since, on your view, married couples must conceive (since such is a part of your definition of marriage) why would any reasons be accepted? Is there some scriptural basis for accepting some reasons to avoid conception over others? It seems to me that a commandment is a commandment.

    My problem... is with seperating the act of procreation from the rest of those things...It is that seperation that makes the wife a whore, not the fact that there is pleasure involved, or other things besides procreation involved. The purposeful seperation and isolation of the pleasurable aspects and suppresion of the procreative aspect is what makes it unatural.

    Yes, I see, which is why I brought up the Song of Solomon. On the view you just espoused, the text seems to be perverse. Procreation doesn't factor in the two speakers in the text. They are therefore at least deficient in their discourse, if not downright sinful. You may say that procreation is assumed, but that'd be a hanging assertion with no support. The text seems to be concerned with the pleasure one partner has in the other absent the other aspects of the "marital act".

    In biblical terms, the two are not becoming one flesh, and therefore it is a disordered and sinful act that is going against the natural use designed by God... The similarity with homosexuality is striking. Homosexuality is also a seperation of the procreative and unitive act from pleasure.

    Maybe you can (no pun intended), flesh that point out a bit.

    who here has said the Song of Songs is bad, or that pleasure in sex is bad? No one here has said that as far as I know, and I for one (with the Church) certainly dont believe that. It is just a weak straw man. What I have consistently focused on is the seperation of the pleasure from the procreative.

    Well, of course no one has yet said it, only implied it by the arguments used. Again, I just have a difficult time seeing the scriptural argument here. You (and others) appeal to "the two become one flesh", which hasn't yet been explained from your angle. Is a child the unity of the two?

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Continued:

    Purposely removing and/or isolating any aspect of the marital act is a perversion, whether isolating the pleasure, or isolating the procreation in some prudish way, or isolating the visual imagery (pornography) etc, etc. Whether by contraception, homosexuality, oral sex, masturbation, or abortion, isolating and/or removing certain aspects of the act is an intrinsic moral evil.

    I can't ride with you here. It seems to me that the sin is not in the isolation of various aspects but the bent of the desire. Is your desire for your spouse or another?

    Homosexuality is specifically mandated against, but I haven't seen the text that says the sinful basis is the isolation of pleasure. Porn directs the desire away from the rightful object and onto another, which Jesus directly likened to adultery (breaking of a vow, betrayal of the sacred marriage covenant) and not the isolation of pleasure. The sin of abortion is murder, which once again doesn't link to the isolation of pleasure. You tacked on oral sex and masturbation as bonuses, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Biblical text that deals directly with them.

    This is proved from scripture (the two become one flesh), and it is apparent from the natural order just as the disordered nature of homosexuality is.

    Again, I'm not seeing this proof. I'm also not seeing the scriptural basis for appealing to "natural order" here. There is a fairly stark difference between condemning acts that are specifically mentioned and condemning acts that you think might be related to a larger principle.

    But when women who are on the pill, and are killing their own children and yet wantto protest abortion, the hipocrisy is just outrageous.

    Who's burning the straw men here? There's nothing in this or the other meta that you could use to cobble this together.

    It's amazing to me how some people are so willing to give up their Christian freedom and submit themselves to a new set of laws. Unless there is a really great case to be made to the contrary, I think I'll just go with St. Paul's endorsement of marriage as an appropriate context for sexual desire.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Augustine, contra David Meyer, in his On Exodus:

    Here the question of the soul is usually raised: whether what is not formed can be understood to have no soul, and whether for that reason it is not homicide, because one cannot be said to be deprived of a soul if one has not yet received a soul...If the embryo is still unformed, but yet in some way ensouled while unformed...the law does not provide that the act pertains to homicide because still there cannot be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.....

    And remember, Augustine adopted the Aristotelian idea that ensoulment did not occur for male embryos until the fortieth day after fertilization and eighty days for females. In that time period, the embryo did not have a soul and was therefore, not human.


    David Meyer is no doubt serious when he writes,

    The only difference now for me (as a Catholic) is that like abortion, I no longer think it can be left up to each conscience, and that I am now even more convinced of it. Augustine is correct, If a man has relations with his wife and does something to prevent her from conceiving, he makes her a whore.

    Now what I really love about this is that it directly contradicts the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Ever since Pius XII's (in)famous pronouncement which permitted the “rhythm method” the Roman Catholic church has thrown Augustine under the bus! Because the “rhythm method” is “something” that prevents a wife from conceiving, then EVERY faithful Roman Catholic husband today makes his wife a whore when he follows the pope!

    The irony is too delicious. The official teaching of the Roman Catholic church makes every Catholic wife a whore - on no less authority than St. Augustine!

    We pray that David will see the error of his ways, repent and return to the Church of Jesus Christ.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  27. We saw previously how David Meyer's confused sense of history caused him to be caught between St. Augustine and the soon-to-be (God forbid!) St. Pius XII. Now he comes forward with yet another historical fiction here:

    ”It is that [sic]seperation that makes the wife a whore, not the fact that there is pleasure involved, or other things besides procreation involved. The purposeful [sic]seperation and isolation of the pleasurable aspects and [sic]suppresion of the procreative aspect is what makes it [sic]unatural. In biblical terms, the two are not becoming one flesh, and therefore it is a disordered and sinful act that is going against the natural use designed by God. “

    But that is not what the venerated 17th century Jesuit scholar, Thomas Sanchez taught! Here is what Sanchez taught, and such teaching for which he was never reprimanded or corrected:

    "On the specific question of purpose in marital intercourse, Sanchez takes this position: if one is in the state of grace and does not intend an evil end, one virtually, although not explicitly, refers what one does to God. A married person in this state of mind seeking intercourse acts virtuously. There is, then, no need to fit the intention of married persons in coitus to one of the categories of purpose. There is no sin in spouses who intend “only to copulate as spouses” (The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony 9.8)

    So David, you are again at odds with your denomination's “tradition” when you talk of this “separation”. Fr. Sanchez said “There is no sin in spouses who intend “only to copulate as spouses””.

    Commenting on Sanchez's work, Professor of Catholic Theology, Marquette University, Dr. Daniel C. Maguire notes,

    Jesuit theologian Thomas Sanchez who died in the early seventeenth century said that all of his contemporary Catholic theologians approved of early abortion to save the life of the woman. None of these theologians or bishops were censured for these views. Note again that one of them, St. Antoninus, was canonized as a saint. Their limited "pro-choice" position was considered thoroughly orthodox and can be so considered today.

    So David, the confusion you have about your church's teaching is quite vast. Abortions, especially early ones, were sanctioned by your church until recently. And your idea of separating intentions during the marital act as sinful is just clearly not the teaching of your church.

    Repent...the hour is near!

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Forgive me for leaving out the citation for Prof. Maguire's work.

    It can be found here.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Ever since Pius XII's (in)famous pronouncement which permitted the “rhythm method” the Roman Catholic church has thrown Augustine under the bus!

    Because the “rhythm method” is “something” that prevents a wife from conceiving, then EVERY faithful Roman Catholic husband today makes his wife a whore when he follows the pope!"


    It's ironic indeed, and these Sedevacantist fanatics are intellectually consistent enough to recognize it, and thus include Pius XII to their list of anti-popes:

    Pius XII Heretically Taught Sinful Birth Control and Eugenics


    "Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951:

    "Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called "agenesic" periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept. You are expected to be well informed, from the medical point of view, in regard to this new theory and the progress which may still be made on this subject ... It is your function, not the priest's, to instruct the married couple through private consultation or serious publications on the biological and technical aspect of the theory, without however allowing yourselves to be drawn into an unjust and unbecoming propaganda. But in this field also your apostolate demands of you, as women and as Christians, that you know and defend the moral law, to which the application of the theory is subordinated. ... If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. ... If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely. ... the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. ... Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty [procreation] without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life. Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called 'indications,' may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint ...""

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Forgive me for leaving out the citation for Prof. Maguire's work.

    It can be found here."

    Constantine, that link seems to be pretty clear liberal-revisionist pro-abortion propaganda.

    The same advances in embryo biology that have made clear that contraception is not murder have made it clear that abortion IS murder.

    ReplyDelete
  31. some very interesting comments from Contintine, Fosi and Viisaus.

    Let's see. There was the Nancy Pelosi "the church fathers were pro choice" card. I wonder if that is ACTUALLY believed or just a card to play to win a debate? One could quite easily point to the fact that no father ever said abortion was allowable or condoned at any stage in conception regardless of whether or not they believed the soul was enshrined at some point after conception in the womb.

    Somebody said that because Catholics believe that every sexual union between man and wife must be both procreative and unitive that we must hate Song of Songs. OK.

    It was said that NFP makes Catholic women whores. This based on a continued refusal by certain participants here to separate intent from means as well as a refusal to understand that the Catholic Church emphasizes that a proper intent must accompany NFP.

    Thanks for the conversation so far.

    ReplyDelete
  32. DAVID MEYER SAID:

    "It is that seperation that makes the wife a whore, not the fact that there is pleasure involved, or other things besides procreation involved. The purposeful seperation and isolation of the pleasurable aspects and suppresion of the procreative aspect is what makes it unatural."

    So if a postmenopausal wife consents to conjugal relations with her husband, that makes her a whore because she separated (out) the intent to conceive from other aspects of the marital act.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "So if a postmenopausal wife consents to conjugal relations with her husband, that makes her a whore because she separated (out) the intent to conceive from other aspects of the marital act."

    No.

    Somebody sent me an email warning about this website - including older entries advocating of all things for Christian men to masturbate.

    If the gulf between our two positions is that wide than I can't see us getting anywhere in this forum. These are matters of the heart and matters of faith.

    God me with all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Warren,

    "No" is not a counterargument. You need to demonstrate the internal consistency of your position.

    ReplyDelete
  35. These are matters of the heart and matters of faith.

    Not primarily. First and foremost, they are matters of truth. I wonder if that isn't a major cause of confusion here.

    Things that are untrue are not worthy of faith, nor of admittance into one's heart. The value of the Christian position is that it is true. The thing that made faith in Christ worth more than a comfortable death for Christians through the centuries is that it is faith in something that is true.

    Part of that truth is that Christians are free from sin and slaves to righteousness. We cannot help but do good works and not the sort invented my man and his ever presumptive reasoning.

    That the main appeals have been to Patristic and Vatican sources is a problem since neither of those sources are incapable of error. Since the position here advocated by our Catholic friends seems to be at odds with the plain meaning of the inerrant Scripture, I'll stick with the Scripture.

    The sort of reasoning presented here robs the Christian of joy and makes the good gifts of God into a new yoke of slavery to the law. As I've said before, I think I will stick with the plain meaning of Scripture (1 Corinthians 6 & 7 is a great start) and positions that contradict it can hang.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I think I will stick with the plain meaning of Scripture (1 Corinthians 6 & 7 is a great start) and positions that contradict it can hang."

    Then by all means let's hear you exegete the plain meaning of scripture that advocates artificial birth control.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Shifting the burden of proof doesn't help you.

    Where the text is silent, I'll remain silent. What it doesn't prohibit, I'll not prohibit. Having been freed from sin, I have no desire to tie others down with needless laws and man-made "good" works.

    That Urbani and others don't deal with the Scriptures on the matter is telling. It's pretty clear that within the context of marriage, sex for pleasure and on the basis of desire for one's wife is not only permitted but is celebrated as a good thing. There need not be any other purpose wrapped up in marital sex to make it good.

    It's stunning that there is an apparently prurient need for some people to set up laws beyond the Scriptural pale. I think I may now have the barest inkling why St. Paul called them "foolish" Galatians for having begun in the Spirit, now turning to fleshly means to be made pure.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Warren said:

    including older entries advocating of all things for Christian men to masturbate.

    How irresponsible. Did you even read those entries? There is no "advocating" in any such sense. I do know there are some unstable Catholics who frequent the Reformed blogosphere and distort the record on this question, having an unhealthy, sinful, and, quite frankly, juvenile obsession with the topic. You would be best not to trust their e-mails and pass along their slander in a public forum. Whatever your conception of "charity" entails, I imagine it includes the willingness to properly represent someone's position, rather than to base your opinions on hearsay.

    Given such, your current behavior suggests you are seeking excuses to exit this conversation on some sort of moral high ground, since you have otherwise failed to interact on the issues presented in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "...speaking of Sedevacantists, here is a piece where these purists denounce the NFP with the same guilt-tripping gusto as David Meyer denounces contraception"

    I am a Catholic who uses NFP, my wife has been pregnant at least 9 times in our 11 year marriage, and I want as many blessings (in the form of children) as God can give us. Notice the Sedevacantists dont really argue on principle, just on how NFP is abused.

    What you did there is sort of like if I brought in some Hyper-Calvinist stuff into an argument with you about free will. You wouldnt really care, because they are fringe freaks that dont represent Calvinism. I feel the same way when you bring up sedevacantists irelevant, ignorant, and dissenting opinions.

    Sedevacantists can abuse the marital embrace if they want as well. By perhaps viewing it as has been characterized on this thread: as if it were *merely* about procreation. I can see them potentially pridefully abstaining from marital sex durring the inevitable times their conscience will tell them they should not procreate. They will be thinking they are so holy, when they have actually fallen into the sin of legalism and presumption of their own holiness. Par for the course for the scismatic and disobedient sedevacantists.
    Perhaps if they actually read Humani Generis instead of burning it, they would be able to make an intelligent argument.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Viisaus said:
    “And whether Luther or Calvin themselves understood it or not, it's an inevitable part of Reformation doctrine of believer's "liberty in Christ" that church authorities are not allowed to peek into the bedrooms of married believers and tell them what to do there. The church has a right to correct only public misbehavior.”
    Yeah, I’ve been there with ya. When I was Reformed, I ended up gradually disagreeing with them and seeing my theology as much more advanced. No worries though, sola Scriptura, right?

    “Issues like masturbation are quite literally something that one must settle with God personally.”
    Masturbation is lust, which is condemned harshly by Christ himself and just as harshly by Paul. Even biblicaly, it is just obviously a grave sin, Pure and simple. Btw, if it is not pure lust, then what the heck is it is it? How could it be anything else!? The bible does not need to spell out for us that masturbation is lust. Just like it doesn’t need to spell out that leering at a woman is lust, or that homosexuality is lust. If masturbation is not evil, then why in the world is viewing porn evil? The average protestant answer is totally inconsistent on this, and btw, I would be saying all this when I was in the PCA as well, this is not some distinctively Catholic thing for me.
    “They are not something that one should discuss with officious priestly mediators in the confession box. (What practical advice can celibate priests or monks give about family life anyways?)”
    First, assuming my priest is unmarried and has no kids, which is an assumption and not a sure thing, I don’t merely want “advice” from them I can get that anywhere. I want the Eucharist and absolution, and they can give that. But incidentally, they are familiar with far more real family situations that we will ever be, and I bet their advice is better than ours would be.
    Second, Jesus says to his apostles “whose sins you forgive are forgiven”. So if I have committed a sexual sin, whether it is homosexuality, adultery, abortion (which carries auto excommunication btw), masturbation, lust of the eyes, Coveting my neighbor’s wife, contraception use, oral sex, fornication… etc… etc… I will confess that sin in the way Christ my Lord says it should be done, to the ones He sent, not the way I find convenient. In keeping with Christ’s words, which of the ones he sent do you confess to and receive forgiveness from?

    “One thing that used to make Protestants detest the RC sacrament of confession was the way it allowed strangers to gain information about intimate family affairs.”
    Yeah, it can be embarrassing, but priests have always heard something worse, and there really are no new sins. Other than desiring to conceal my sin, I don’t see what in my “intimate affairs” I need to hide from my priest, who forgives all my confessed sins as Christ bids him to. (and I can always go somewhere to be anon. if I want). What sin could someone confess to surprise a priest? The answer is absolutely nothing. They lift the dark underbelly of humanity every day, and are in a unique position to understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. “When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, ‘Give me children, or I shall die!’ Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, ‘Am I in the place of God, Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’ ” (Genesis 30:1-2)

    “Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful, as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (John Paul II, as quoted in L’Osservatore Romano on Oct.10, 1983).

    Jacob and John Paul II seem to be saying one and the same thing. :)

    With love in Christ,
    Pete Holter

    ReplyDelete
  42. Fosi said:
    “Since, on your view, married couples must conceive (since such is a part of your definition of marriage) …”
    Huh? Please show me where I said that? I do not believe that. You really mischaracterized there.
    “…why would any reasons be accepted?”
    If their reason is something other than an attempt to sin, then it is an OK reason. This would fall into the category of the “with mutual consent for a time” reasons Paul would accept in 1 Cor. 7.

    “Is there some scriptural basis for accepting some reasons to avoid conception over others?”
    1 Cor. 7 says spouses can abstain from relations “with consent for a time”. Obviously if there reason for abstaining is itself sinful, then their abstainance is a sin, and they should come together.
    “It seems to me that a commandment is a commandment.”
    Well, St. Paul does not see abstaining for a time with good reason to be going against the commandement. In verse 19 of that very chapter, Paul even says it is not about legalism, but obeying God’s commands. If someone has a good reason for not conceiving, they are within their rights to abstain from relations. But notice Paul speaks of abstaining and then coming together again. His assumption is that the marital act (as fully displayed in all its glory in Song of Solomon), is a whole act. He would be repulse to thing Christians were using devices that intentionally prevented pregnancy yet let the participant still retain the pleasure. To the drunk he would say “Beer is a gift, drink but don’t be drunk”. To the bulimic he would “Food is a gift, eat but don’t separate the pleasure of eating from the rest of the act of eating”. To the contraceptor, he would say “The marriage act is a gift, but don’t separate the pleasure of it from the act of marriage act itself.” Even scripturally, (whether you are Prot. Or Catholic there should be agreement), ANY sexual activity of any kind outside of the bounds of the normal act of the marriage bed (described in Song of Solomon) is evil. Period. Contraception is definitely included in the “out of bounds” category, right there with bulimia and drunkenness. All are perversions of God’s good gift.
    As an endnote, I want to encourage any of you that may be using the pill in your marriage, or any contraception besides a condom or the “Onan” method, that other methods can cause abortions of already human babies. This is not well known among Protestants (in my experience) so I just wanted to warn any concerned folks here of that fact. (I was glad when Doug Wilson spoke up about it) I think we can agree that murder is not an area we can disagree on, so please verbally denounce the pill to the younger couples in your congregations. They need to hear that message loud and clear from you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Yes, I see, which is why I brought up the Song of Solomon. On the view you just espoused, the text seems to be perverse. Procreation doesn't factor in the two speakers in the text."

    Of course it "factors in". Again, apply this to eating. Eating is all over in the bible, and rarely if ever does it talk about digestion. So is bulemia ok?

    No! But fasting is.

    Eat or don't eat, but don't pervert God's gift by bulemia or gluttony. Eating is a package deal. So is sex. Song of Solomon describes the whole package! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am a Catholic who uses NFP, my wife has been pregnant at least 9 times in our 11 year marriage, and I want as many blessings (in the form of children) as God can give us.

    Then why use NFP at all?
    Why couldn't someone else say: I am a ____ who uses condoms, my wife has been pregnant at least 3 times in our 11 year marriage, and I want as many blessings (in the form of children) as God can give us.
    May you need to rephrase; if you want as many as God "can" give you, what's the point of NFP? NFP is generally considered a (generally ineffective) means of birth control, but it sounds like you want lots and lots of births.



    abortion (which carries auto excommunication btw

    Though voting for and heartily endorsing abortion apparently carries no penalty whatsoever.




    To the bulimic he would “Food is a gift, eat but don’t separate the pleasure of eating from the rest of the act of eating”

    This simply begs the question in favor of your position.
    We have yet to see very good argumentation that would lead us to believe that procreation is the only good outcome of sex.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Constantine,
    In your Augustine quote from “on Exodus” I don’t get what I am supposed to be taking from it, or how I am “contra” Augustine. Not your fault I bet, I am just missing it.
    “Because the “rhythm method” is “something” that prevents a wife from conceiving, then EVERY faithful Roman Catholic husband today makes his wife a whore when he follows the pope!”
    Your cogent yet charitable argumentation is amazing. Keep in mind there are Reformed believers who think the way I do as well sir. They do not submit to the Magisterium, but they believe contraception to be wrong for some of the same reasons I do.
    I had said: Augustine is correct, If a man has relations with his wife and does something to prevent her from conceiving, he makes her a whore.
    NFP does not entail “a man who has relations with his wife” preventing her from conceiving in any way. That would be entailed in contraception however. Augustine makes this distinction, and that is what I was referring to. Contracepting makes the marital act into something like bulimia and drunkenness are to eating and drinking. What is meant to be something akin to “covenant renewal” ceremony of the marriage, or for a Catholic covenantal and sacramental renewal ceremony, is ripped out of context when an aspect of the “ceremony” is purposely excluded.
    “So David, you are again at odds with your denomination's “tradition””
    If you had accurately portrayed that Tradition, you would have my attention. But you did not. Bringing up the opinions of heretic liberal (and dissenting) professors and single 17th century theologian who sounds like is being taken out of context, but even if he is not, is not in himself the Magisterium.
    This is getting odd so I will bow out now I think. Thanks gents and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "We pray that David will see the error of his ways, repent..."

    Thanks for the prayer, I can use it! And I will pray for you as well brother.

    "...and return to the Church of Jesus Christ."


    I am now in the Church as of Dec. 19th, it is quite a wonderful thing. Jesus is so awesome.

    "Repent...the hour is near!"

    I do every day! But I will tonight I promise. Kyrie Eleison is my constant prayer.

    "for the sake of his sorowfull passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!"

    Peace guys,

    David M.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rhology wrote, “Why couldn't someone else say: I am a ____ who uses condoms, my wife has been pregnant at least 3 times in our 11 year marriage, and I want as many blessings (in the form of children) as God can give us.”

    Hi Rhology!

    One difference is that the condom blocks the ejaculation from completing one of its biological purposes, which is to project the sperms toward the egg that they are designed to fertilize. The act of using a condom contradicts this design and therefore contradicts the will of our Creator King.

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Though voting for and heartily endorsing abortion apparently carries no penalty whatsoever."

    Yeah that is sick, and it is a discipline issue, not doctrine. The bishops know what to do, but are lax.
    But would it have a penalty in your congregation? I highly doubt the PCA would excommunicate for voting pro choice for instance. At least the Catholic Church should do something according to its own code of cannon law, but often chooses not to.

    I dont see any comparable laws in conservative Prot. denoms. Although I would love to be wrong on that.

    "if you want as many as God "can" give you, what's the point of NFP?"

    Conceiving a month after birth is not a good way to have lots of kids for some couples. I said we had conceived 9 times, but we only have 4 children. We have had heartache and been to the cemetery. Wisdom is involved in maximizing the blessings. Using NFP with the right attitude, for the right reasons, while listening to a doctor, enables my wife and I to maximize the blessings while at the same time only comming together when the procreative aspect is being affirmed and welcomed (which includes times of pregnancy btw, and may eventually include times past childbearing age- think Abraham)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yeah that is sick, and it is a discipline issue, not doctrine.

    But the same is true of abortion itself. How does this escape the same problem?


    The bishops know what to do, but are lax

    Then the Magisterium is lax in not doing so either.


    But would it have a penalty in your congregation? I highly doubt the PCA would excommunicate for voting pro choice for instance.

    I am a member of a very pro-life SBC church, and the answer is yes.
    So here we, again, see a Protestant church more faithful to the deposit of faith than the RCC.



    At least the Catholic Church should do something according to its own code of cannon law, but often chooses not to.

    Which is the exact same thing that can be said about Protestant churches out the wazoo. I'm not sure you see the seeds of the destruction of very common RC arguments you're sowing here.



    Conceiving a month after birth is not a good way to have lots of kids for some couples. I said we had conceived 9 times, but we only have 4 children.

    Are you saying you took action to block the ejaculation from completing one of its biological purposes, which is to project the sperms toward the egg that they are designed to fertilize? In that there was no egg there?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Someone said:

    So if a postmenopausal wife consents to conjugal relations with her husband, that makes her a whore because she separated (out) the intent to conceive from other aspects of the marital act.

    Warren said: No.

    Steve said:

    "No" is not a counterargument. You need to demonstrate the internal consistency of your position.

    Did Abraham and Sarah have the intent to concieve? Being "open" to conception occurs in many different contexts. The point is we should not intentionally remove some aspects of the act. If they are not there through God's will (pregnancy or menopause) we do not sin because we have not attempted to thwart God and remove the posibility of conception during the act. We Catholics do not practice sexual bulemia.

    ReplyDelete
  51. David,

    You're argument seems to be that as long as a postmenopausal wife still could get pregnant through some fluke of nature, the couple still "open" to conception.

    By parity of reasoning, a couple that uses "artificial" birth control is still open to conception since there's always the possibility that "artificial" birth control will fail.

    ReplyDelete
  52. By parity of reasoning, a couple that uses "artificial" birth control is still open to conception since there's always the possibility that "artificial" birth control will fail.

    By parity of reasoning, that is not analogous since the married couple having intercourse where the woman is post menopausal is not using artificial means to deliberately frustrate human life.

    By the way - Matthew says that this blog does not condone masturbation...

    Steve writes, "I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice. On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime. Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night."

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html

    ^ source

    ReplyDelete
  54. Further proof of Steve's blatant defense of self abuse can be found here:

    http://josiahconcept.org/2010/03/19/is-masturbation-a-sin-a-disagreement-with-steve-hays/

    So, unless you Matthew want to kick Steve Hays off of Triablogue, this blog does condone masturbation. Almost unbelievable for a blog that still poses as a Christian blog - but true.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Urbani,

    You're changing the subject. The question at issue, as David and Warren framed the issue, is whether the couple is "open" to conception or has a conceptual "intent."

    If the wife is postmenopausal, those conditions cannot be met.

    You can, of course, continue to defend loopholes in the Catholic position. And that simply exposes the incoherence and dishonesty of the Catholic position.

    You attack "artificial" contraception, but then turn right around and defend various escape clauses in the Catholic alternative.

    Just like the church of Rome technically opposes divorce, by then has a very lenient policy on annulment.

    Classic Pharisaism from start to finish.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Steve,

    The Catholic position is beautifully consistent. Every harebrained attempt that you or anybody else has been put forth to liken Catholic teaching on sex and marriage as out to make Catholic women whores or pretend that it is just the same as artificial (why the hell do you put artificial in "" by the way?) have been answered within the framework of Catholic moral teaching. If you disagree, which one has not been answered?

    You are the one left fumbling around about masturbation and imagining that all the Reformed fathers previously cited weren't quite as smart as you when it comes to contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Urbani,

    Of course, you haven't presented a counterargument. What a surprise.

    Instead, you roll your eyes and act aghast–like Muslims who are scandalized by Christians who eat bacon.

    ReplyDelete
  58. It is really quite simple:

    “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.” Catechism, 2363

    “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.” Catechism, 2369

    All sexual embraces of a couple practicing NFP (with proper intent of course) affirm the unitive and procreative aspect of God's gift of our sexuality. This is also so when God, by nature, renders making a baby impossible due to medical issues, menopause or the women is already pregnant. When husband and wife come together under those circumstances their union is still ordered toward our natural end and unitive in every respect. Nature itself no longer allows pregnancy, while in sex with the use contraception, there is an intentional and actual interference in the process - an act devoted against the commandment of God.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Honestly - this whole discussion is simply one where you and others have dug a giant hole for yourselves and you refuse to acknowledge it. The best you've been able to do is attempt far reaching analogies that fail at first blush and then claim victory because Catholic interlocutors tire of playing by the crooked rules of the house.

    Just think folks - is what we are standing up for a bad thing? Is it bad to stand up for marriage and for children? Is it bad to stand behind God when he says, 'Be fruitful and multiply!' Is it bad to stand up and affirm that babies and the gift of human life is ALWAYS a good thing (a quiver full!) in biblical terms? Is it wrong to remind people that the ONLY biblical instance of a person personally frustrating the procreative act of sex was killed by God just after doing it!?! Is it wrong to side with universal teaching of the fathers (even the Reformers!)?

    And, on the other side of the table we have men whose mal-formed moral theology leads them to offer masturbation as a tool for men so that they can perform well on their wedding night...

    I mean, say what you want about the Catholics in other topics but it is pretty obvious that we're right about this one.

    Is anybody paying any attention here? We're the bad guys? We are the ones with 'bad behavior?'

    ReplyDelete
  60. "You're argument seems to be that as long as a postmenopausal wife still could get pregnant through some fluke of nature, the couple still "open" to conception."

    And you would say there is parity between a woman who puts a condom on here spouse and a menopausal woman. The diffeence between the two is night and day. One is against nature, (Romans 1) and one is perfectly within nature. One is sin, one is beautiful. One makes herself a whore, one is a wife. This is bizare to have to teach you something so basic. It is like trying to teach someone why homosexuality is a sin, when it just seems so right and feels so good.

    ReplyDelete
  61. URBANI SAID:

    “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.” Catechism, 2363

    If the "unitive" and "procreative" values "cannot be separated," then conjugal relations with a pregnant or postmenopausal wife is sinful since that is not "open" to the "transmission of life."

    That "separates" the two values, since only one remains in play.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Urbani said...

    "The best you've been able to do is attempt far reaching analogies that fail at first blush and then claim victory because Catholic interlocutors tire of playing by the crooked rules of the house."

    I haven't used any analogies with you. Rather, I've responded to you on your own terms–you and other Catholic commenters. I played by your rules, and won by your rules.

    "Is it bad to stand behind God when he says, 'Be fruitful and multiply!' Is it bad to stand up and affirm that babies and the gift of human life is ALWAYS a good thing (a quiver full!) in biblical terms?"

    Which NFP subverts.

    "! Is it wrong to side with universal teaching of the fathers (even the Reformers!)?"

    While you're siding with the Reformers, side with sola Scriptura and sola fide.

    "And, on the other side of the table we have men whose mal-formed moral theology leads them to offer masturbation as a tool for men so that they can perform well on their wedding night..."

    The fact that you obsess over masturbation leaves the impression that you're sexually frustrated. I guess NFP isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    ReplyDelete
  63. david meyer said...

    "And you would say there is parity between a woman who puts a condom on here spouse and a menopausal woman. The diffeence between the two is night and day. One is against nature, (Romans 1) and one is perfectly within nature. One is sin, one is beautiful. One makes herself a whore, one is a wife. This is bizare to have to teach you something so basic."

    Maybe you lack the intelligence to follow your own argument. You're the one who cast the issue in terms of "openness" to new life, and how that's "inseparable" from the integrity of the marital act.

    NFP thwarts that. Conjugal relations with a pregnant or postmenopausal wife "separates" the unitive and procreative aspects.

    You're shifting the issue from your original framework to what's allegedly "natural."

    ReplyDelete
  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  65. reposted as my mother had signed into computer while I was running:

    The reason I keep bring up self abuse is that it is a symptom of your disease.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Actually, it's symptomatic of your juvenile obsession with masturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Is it bad to stand behind God when he says, 'Be fruitful and multiply!'"

    Some major church fathers (like Jerome), celibacy-and-virginity fanatics that they were, argued that this was one of those commandments that had been abrogated by the coming of the Christ.

    In fact, Jerome also argued that the world was over-populated, and that this was yet one more reason to practice celibacy.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Since we are now discussing tricky issues, I might as well say that I believe it would be a lesser evil to use non-lethal contraception while fornicating (or committing adultery) than giving birth to a bastard and/or infecting your partner with disease.

    I understand the casuistic subject of "lesser evils" was also what the recent brouhaha about pope Ratzinger allegedly approving the use of condoms was all about - how people like homosexual prostitutes with HIV-virus would be committing a lesser sin if they used a condom than if they did not.

    "Peter Seewald: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

    Benedict XVI: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality” (Light of the World, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 119)."

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/129bev12-27-2010.htm


    The RC casuists have traditionally not hesitated to deal with some quite graphic moral subjects, as one can observe from centuries-old Jesuit moral theology.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Of course this is like the subject of using clean drug needles - one should not be caught in the illicit situation to begin with.

    Admittedly contraceptives have made fornicating much easier, but so have so many other modern inventions, the Internet definitely included. And so, if one begins to take the road of legalism (contaceptives are categorically bad because they are indirectly associated with various sins) there would be no end to modern inventions that one would have to reject in order to be consistent with this position.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Romans 1:21-32 (my emphasis):

    21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(A) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(B) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(C) exchanged the glory of(D) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

    24Therefore(E) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,to(F) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(G) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(H) who is blessed forever! Amen.

    26For this reason(I) God gave them up to(J) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(K) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,(L) God gave them up to(M) a debased mind to do(N) what ought not to be done. [...] 32Though they know(O) God’s decree that those who practice such things(P) deserve to die, they not only do them but(Q) give approval to those who practice them.

    The Word of the Lord...

    Faithful Catholics answer "thanks be to God" and obey it.

    The Reformed here answer... but, but... that doesnt apply to ...ME! It applies to those other people!"

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well, apparently, faithful Catholics equate a discussion of idolatry and homosexuality and make up their own conclusions therefrom.
    Have fun with that, but I prefer real exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ENCYCLICAL LETTER
    HUMANAE VITAE
    OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
    PAUL VI

    "We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions."


    "Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

    Peter has spoken through Paul VI.

    Luke 10:16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

    You can obey Christ or walk away because it is a hard saying like those in John 6.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I probably should be doing work instead of replying here, but I don't want to be thought of as having left the conversion.

    Hi again David, I admire your tenacity.

    Please show me where I said [that marriage is for producing children]? I do not believe that. You really mischaracterized there.

    Certainly will:

    David said: "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children... on whose account alone marriages are made.

    You quoted Augustine to further your position and here he is making the case that marriage is only for making children.

    If their reason is something other than an attempt to sin, then it is an OK reason.

    I'll need to see some exegesis on this point, including who it is that decides when someone's intent is sinful.

    This would fall into the category of the “with mutual consent for a time” reasons Paul would accept in 1 Cor. 7.

    No, it would not. I think your hermenutic is off here because if you read relevant part of the chapter, Paul gives the reason for abstaining: "... to devote your selves to prayer..." So no, not just any reason lacking a sinful intent is given a pass by those verses, Paul was speaking about a specific goal for which sex may be abstained from by mutual consent.

    1 Cor. 7 says spouses can abstain from relations “with consent for a time”. Obviously if there reason for abstaining is itself sinful, then their abstainance is a sin, and they should come together.

    Again, you are reading only the portions that you can use to make your case. Paul isn't speaking of just any old reason. He makes no mention of a metric for determining the sinfulness of an intent.

    Well, St. Paul does not see abstaining for a time with good reason to be going against the commandement. In verse 19 of that very chapter, Paul even says it is not about legalism, but obeying God’s commands.

    I'll agree with you that Paul mentions a specific goal (devotion to prayer) that is justifiably supported by a mutually agreed upon period of abstinence. However, there is no indication there that he is giving the reader/hearer cart blanche to add upon what he said.

    Here again we find evidence of a defective hermeneutic where you pull out a single verse (7:19) and try to use it apart from the rightful context. What was Paul speaking of there in the latter portion of chapter 7? He was speaking of remaining in the station, both culturally and physically, that you were when you were called. He speaks about circumcision, slaves, betrotals, bachelors and marriages between beleivers and non-believers. He isn't here making a case for all married sex being intentionally procreative.

    But notice Paul speaks of abstaining and then coming together again. His assumption is that the marital act (as fully displayed in all its glory in Song of Solomon), is a whole act. He would be repulse to thing Christians were using devices that intentionally prevented pregnancy yet let the participant still retain the pleasure.

    Here what you are doing is begging the question by imputing to Paul what you want him to be. Again, there is nothing in the text here that indicates that Paul has anything to say on the issue of when to have children or not. The best you are able to do here is eisegete properties favorable to your position.

    ReplyDelete
  74. To the drunk he would say “Beer is a gift, drink but don’t be drunk”. To the bulimic he would “Food is a gift, eat but don’t separate the pleasure of eating from the rest of the act of eating”. To the contraceptor, he would say “The marriage act is a gift, but don’t separate the pleasure of it from the act of marriage act itself.”

    Here you beg the question, choosing again to import your own argument into a hypothetical text to make Paul say what you wish. By doing this you aren't actually bringing out what is in the text but adding in what you want to be there.

    You also make an interesting equality between drunkenness and pleasure (I don't find it pleasurable), between drunkenness and eating disorders and therefore between pleasure and eating disorders. Those leaps need to be better justified before you can use them here. It seems to me that you have never known someone who has bulimia because it is fuelled by anything except pleasure.

    Even scripturally, (whether you are Prot. Or Catholic there should be agreement), ANY sexual activity of any kind outside of the bounds of the normal act of the marriage bed... is evil. Period. Contraception is definitely included in the “out of bounds” category, right there with bulimia and drunkenness.

    Again you aren't showing how this rises out of the text. You are restating your premises.

    Of course it "factors in". Again, apply this to eating...

    No, I won't apply it to eating until you can justify your analogy.

    Song of Solomon describes the whole package!

    Including the pregnancy, birth, rearing of children, abstaining when children aren't desired and the sin of avoiding conception? I must have missed it. If you want to argue that there is a "total package", the separation of which constitutes sin, then the writer was sinning.

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  75. And so I notice that you dealt with only select portions of what I said, choosing to pass over the main thrust of my argument against your connection between contraception and homosexuality, among other things.

    You have continued to appeal to "two become one flesh" without explaining exactly what that means when you use it. I asked you directly for an explanation and you thus far haven't offered one.

    You have also not dealt with what Paul said in 1 Cor 6 where he was talking about sexual immorality. This is a prime place for Paul to explain the grave moral evil of avoiding conception but he doesn't. That silence doesn't prove anything per se, but it is interesting given how evil it is from your (Church's) standpoint and how central it is (on your view) to the concept of marriage.

    Rather in that chapter, Paul talks about how we should not unite our bodies with a prostitute because in doing so we "become one flesh" with her. Now here Paul is using the phrase that you and others have used! However, we do violence to text if we use it how you have. Using your definition, Paul must be speaking about how important it is to intentionally avoid conception with a prostitute. So using your definition and hermeneutic, it is permissible for me to have sex with a prostitute so long as I don't have a kid with her... That doesn't seem to be what Paul is saying.

    Now you may say, "No, no, no! Having sex with a prostitute is a sin of [insert type here]." I suppose you are welcome to make that argument, but in doing so you will again be adding on to what has already been said. What is Paul speaking about?

    The clear meaning of the text is that one should not have sex with a prostitute because the act itself unites a man's body to hers as one flesh and that ought not to be done because our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. And so, we find that Paul uses your favorite text to refer to the actual sex act and not the conception of children, which undercuts the main current of your argument against barrier contraception between consenting married couples.

    Finally (this has taken too long already), I'll say something about your use of Romans. We find you quoting a section from Romans 1 where Paul is beginning his argument for why all men are condemned, both Jew and gentile alike, apart from Christ. You have bolded what you think are the relevant sections, but what you haven't done is actually made a case for why they support your position.

    When read in their context, what you find is that this is part of a blanket condemnation of all sorts of idolatry and unrighteousness wherein Paul does appeal to a "natural order" of things with regard to sexual activity. It is clear that you think that Paul's invocation of "natural relations" is the same as "either sex with no attempt to avoid children, or total abstinence from any sexual activity", since that is the case you have argued so far. The problem is that Paul didn't leave "natural relations" on the table like an empty jug so you can come by and fill it with whatever meaning you wish. Rather, he goes on to talk specifically about what he means: homosexuality. Hence the second part of verse 7, which you conveniently left out of the bolding.

    Once again, you engage in dubious hermeneutical practice, choosing to emphasize parts of sentences and ignoring the context so you can redefine terms to suite yourself over and against what Paul's stated meaning is. Yes, I know that you have already attempted to link homosexuality with non-conceptual sex, but your argument has been addressed and found to be wanting.

    So far David, your (and others') style of argumentation has been to pull whatever phrases or verses you think support your position out of their context and redefine them. The proper hermeneutical technique is to use the text itself to define the terms. Use the text itself to set the context.

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  76. You aren't the only one either, Pete Holter is also hermeneutically challenged, pulling out Jacob's statement to his wife and choosing to ignore the rest of the immediate context and what it does to his position.

    On the Catholic argument, Jacob never became "one flesh" with his wife, but rather with her servant. Therefore his marriage to her was against the natural order of things and any sex he had with her after he found that she couldn't conceive was a moral evil. It doesn't really matter that he ascribed the difficulty conceiving to God's will, he could never again have moral sex with his wife. I'm not sure I can convey the sense of incredulity I feel at making sex with one's wife a sin...

    Pete might say, "No, no, no! You have misunderstood my argument! I was saying that clearly Jacob saw the 'withholding of the fruit of the womb' as the sole province of God." Yes, I understand your argument and I agree that Jacob certainly meant that it wasn't his fault that his wife wasn't conceiving. The problem is that the way you (plural) have defined the terms seems to work in some limited cases (if you stand on your head and squint one eye), but it does violence to other portions of the text. If it was God's sole province to give Rachel children, she sinned first by circumvented His will, then again by enabling the unity of flesh between her servent and her husband.

    And here I've only dealth with a small number of texts, but not because I have something to hide. I haven't made mention of other places (like Hebrews 13) where Biblical authors were free to state that avoiding conception is sinful but they don't, choosing to focus on the meaning and context of sexual acts.

    There is a much simpler way to look at this issue that comports not only with the texts regarding marital sex but also with the texts speaking about how we who are in Christ have no condemnation, that we are free from the law of sin and death and that we are slaves to righteousness... That is the view that identifies sexual acts, not children, as the things which unify the flesh of men and women. That it is the context of sexual acts, marital/non-marital, that determine their moral value.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Mr. Fosi wrote,

    “Yes, I understand your argument and I agree that Jacob certainly meant that it wasn't his fault that his wife wasn't conceiving.”

    Hi, Mr. Fosi. Cool name!

    Based on Genesis 30:2, do you disagree that it would be usurping the prerogative of God to do something that would cause infertility when the marital act is in view? Wouldn’t doing this be to put oneself “in the place of God”? Don’t you think that it is fair to draw this principle from this case when we come to appreciate the fact that every single marital act that is detailed for us in Scripture was not contracepted, with the exception of Onan? When we see that even David’s adultery, Judah’s prostitution, and Lot’s incest were all open to life? When we come to appreciate that God declared in Genesis 35:11: “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply.” And that this command was given to Jacob after he had already fathered eleven sons and a daughter?

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  78. Mr. Fosi,

    Again you mis-characterized me, this time by misquoting, and again put words in my mouth that I did not and would not say.

    Your original misquote was:

    “Since, on your view, married couples must conceive (since such is a part of your definition of marriage) …”

    To which I responded:

    Huh? Please show me where I said that? I do not believe that. You really mischaracterized there.

    Your response starts by quoting me as saying:

    "Please show me where I said [that marriage is for producing children]? I do not believe that. You really mischaracterized there."

    That is not what I said!

    Then you procede to give a chopped up version of the Augustine quote I gave, even having “David said” at the front of the chopped up quote:

    “David said: "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children... on whose account alone marriages are made.”

    Here is what I actually had quoted, with the emphasis that I expressly included:

    "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"

    THAT is what I said. And the context of everything I have said on this site, including this quote has been about not separating the different aspects of the marital act. Augustine makes the same point as mine, and his point does not depend on whether procreation is the only valid aspect. The point is when an aspect is removed, it is no longer “what marriage is”. I am fairly sure he would make the same point in the case of in-vitro fertilization.

    The point is that isolating certain aspects is unnatural and abhorrent.

    “You quoted Augustine to further your position and here he is making the case that marriage is only for making children.”

    Whatever he thinks about the purpose of marriage, it is clear that he sees messing with the marriage act to be a grave sin. He says men become adulterers of their wives “when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive.” Whether procreation is the only reason for marriage or is the chief of many necessary reasons, either way Augustine's point stands. The idea expressed in this quote does not turn on the word “only”.

    I must be very unclear in my writing for you to misunderstand me so badly. If so, I am sorry for that. Either that or you are intentionally misquoting and mis-characterizing.

    This is like arguing with a homosexual “rights” advocate. If you, as a professing Christian cant see that something like contraception is so profoundly contrary to human dignity and is a grave sin, AND you have read the scripture and claim to believe it, a layman like me will likely not convince you.

    You need to go back to the drawing board and let Romans 1 sink in guys.

    Peace,

    David Meyer

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hi, Mr. Fosi. Cool name!

    Hi Pete and thank you. :D Now if I could remember where it came from.

    Based on Genesis 30:2, do you disagree that it would be usurping the prerogative of God to do something that would cause infertility when the marital act is in view? Wouldn’t doing this be to put oneself “in the place of God”?

    No, I don't think so. I don't think so because there is no condemnation of the behavior of Jacob or Rachel in circumventing what you deem as "God's will" by having a baby with another person and calling it Rachel's. What we have is Jacob's view of Rachel's difficulty. Does that mean that we have to have Jacob's view as well?

    Don’t you think that it is fair to draw this principle from this case when we come to appreciate the fact that every single marital act that is detailed for us in Scripture was not contracepted, with the exception of Onan? When we see that even David’s adultery, Judah’s prostitution, and Lot’s incest were all open to life?

    No, I don't think that it is fair to draw this conclusion. The Onan issue has been thoroughly gone over and the conclusion is that his was a specific sin in refusing to obey a specific law, not an illustration of a general principle.

    Do you think it is a fair conclusion that, based on God's commands when the nation of Israel moved into Canaan, that we should wipe out every pagan person in any neighborhood, city or nation that we move into?

    When we come to appreciate that God declared in Genesis 35:11: “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply.” And that this command was given to Jacob after he had already fathered eleven sons and a daughter?

    That's a partial quotation. Here's a larger chunk so we don't miss the context: "And God said to [Jacob]: 'I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A Nation and a company of nations shall come from you and kings shall come from your body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you." Who is the "you" in that latter part of 35:11?

    If God was telling all believers to be fruitful and multiply at the beginning of 35:11, then He must also be telling each of us that he will bring forth nations and kings from our bodies and that He will give each of us the land He gave to Abraham and Isaac and then again to our offspring.

    The Biblical text is made up of different types of literature and not all the text is applicable as principle. Some of it, like this section of Genesis, is history.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mr. Fosi says:

    "You have also not dealt with what Paul said in 1 Cor 6 where he was talking about sexual immorality. This is a prime place for Paul to explain the grave moral evil of avoiding conception but he doesn't. That silence doesn't prove anything per se, but it is interesting given how evil it is from your (Church's) standpoint and how central it is (on your view) to the concept of marriage."

    Paul says:

    18 Flee (AC) from sexual immorality! "Every sin a person can commit is outside the body," [g] but the person who is sexually immoral (AD) sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a sanctuary (AE) of the Holy Spirit (AF) who is in you, (AG) whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought (AH) at a price; therefore glorify God in your body. [h]

    Paul mentions sexual immorality. Therefore he is talking about contraception, which is an obvious sin against ones body.

    Paul does not mention contraception by name, and you know, he doesnt specifically say we cant get a sex change either! According to your logic, needing it all spelled out, we can get sex changes because Paul doesnt mention it right?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hi again, David.

    You're not actually dealing with the arguments I provided. Frankly, my wife will kill me if I spend much more time on this, so I'll wait for a direct response to what I've already said.

    I've taken a lot of time to converse with you in good faith, the least you can do is deal directly with the substance of my argument instead of nibbling away at peripheral issues and changing the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hey Mr. Fosi!

    Oh. Where does “Mr. Fosi” come from?

    The reason why we should adopt Jacob’s view expressed in Genesis 30:2 is because it is in conformity with the rest of the picture we see emerging from all of the individual examples.

    The reason why God’s command to Jacob in 35:11 takes on significance is because God had already given this same command in Genesis 1:28, 9:1, and 9:7. In 35:11 we see a specific application being given after 12 children had been born. In the New Testament, we have the clear promise of an eternal city before us, and we too are raising up children as part of a holy nation, kings and queens in the King of kings.

    We also see that this fruitfulness is bestowed as a reward for and sign of being in friendship with God (cf. Lev. 26:9; Jer. 23:3).

    The historical narrative was written to give us examples for our instruction. You seem to want to treat each individual example as disparate, ad hoc, and in isolation from the whole. But, again, every single example of sex in the Old Testament is procreative with the exception of Onan, who was put to death. The witness from examples is unanimous. The command to be fruitful and multiply and the recognition of children as a blessing inform and guide our inspection of these episodes to draw the conclusion that procreation is intrinsic to the sex act.

    When we come to the New Testament, this picture of sex is further tempered by an added emphasis on and encouragement towards celibacy. Although it is good to have sex for the purpose of procreation, it is even better to remain a virgin. You get a different mesh when you combine the New Testament instruction with the tribal wars of the Israelites conducted at the command of God.

    With love in Christ,
    Pete Holter

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hi Pete,

    Oh. Where does “Mr. Fosi” come from?

    I once thought I knew: from The Curse of Monkey Island 2, but when I went back to validate my belief, there was no such character listed in any of the CMI games. I can remember clearly the character who's name I thought it was, but I haven't ever been able to find out what game it came from. That's why I say that I wish I knew where it came from. :D

    The reason why God’s command to Jacob in 35:11 takes on significance is because God had already given this same command in Genesis 1:28, 9:1, and 9:7. In 35:11 we see a specific application being given after 12 children had been born. In the New Testament, we have the clear promise of an eternal city before us, and we too are raising up children as part of a holy nation, kings and queens in the King of kings.

    I see. So what we can do with the Scripture is find repeated commands to specific individuals and apply them to ourselves regardless of the context in which they were given. We can take whatever we wish to be commands or promises to us, personally. But if we find that our application in the first half of the command or promise does violence to the second half, we can simply allagorize it. How do we discern between the parts of divine commands to persons and which are simply allagorical? I suppose we would appeal to the bishop in Rome or some part of the Roman Church architecture? They must therefore have a special impartation of the Holy Spirit not given to common believers... Perhaps they apply some latinized version of peshat, remez, derash, and sod?

    See, that's the kind of hermeneutic I can't hold with because the sum total effect is to create new legislation and to induce confusion in what you might call "common" believers. Such a way of reading the text allows anyone (RCC, Mormons, JW's, agnostics and atheists; not to imply that the RCC is equivalent to them) to make the text say whatever they want.

    The historical narrative was written to give us examples for our instruction.

    Or rather it is to show how much God has loved us and how great is His sovereign glory in accomplishing His purposes in spite of man's sin. It is a clear view of how it is that we are sinful and have personally sinned but also how God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself while we were still rebels, dead in our sin.

    Note the different focus of Christ for us throughout the whole salvation meta-narrative. Rather than an instruction book that is primarily principles for living righteous lives (i.e. laws), it is the sweeping story of how God has rescued us using the blood of His Son and the faith in it to justify us, the ungodly. It must be this because the law, weakened by our flesh is powerless to save us. The Scripture is, on the whole, a call to repentance and faith in the atonement made by Christ for the sins of all who believe.

    You seem to want to treat each individual example as disparate, ad hoc, and in isolation from the whole.

    On the contrary, what I am doing is determining on the basis of context what the meaning of a given text is. It's all part of a consistent hermeneutic that allows believers to know what the text means. It keeps men from speaking where the text is silent and being silent where the text speaks.

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  84. The sort of logic that you are using to make your case looks like the same error of the hyper-Calvinists in that you are both using some logical framework to take you beyond what God has actually said to His people. In the H-C case, they end up in a strict determinism populated by automata and in your case you end up with situations where consenting married couples are sinning when they have sex (among other manifest problems).

    It seems rather better that we start where the text starts and stop where the text stops. Then we don't have to twist and contort the text into our own pet frameworks.

    But, again, every single example of sex in the Old Testament is procreative with the exception of Onan, who was put to death.

    Which you've appealed again to despite the fact that it doesn't actually apply to your case.

    The witness from examples is unanimous. The command to be fruitful and multiply and the recognition of children as a blessing inform and guide our inspection of these episodes to draw the conclusion that procreation is intrinsic to the sex act.

    And thus what you have done is used a defective hermeneutic to speak out of turn. Rather than actually determine what each text means, we can cobble them together out of their context and allagorize away difficulties to make new laws to bind believers with. It is an exercise in placing an alien interpretive grid down on the text and getting an alien idea out.

    When we come to the New Testament, this picture of sex is further tempered by an added emphasis on and encouragement towards celibacy. Although it is good to have sex for the purpose of procreation, it is even better to remain a virgin.

    And again, the question is begged and words are added to the Apostles' mouths. "Sex for the purpose of procreation and all else is sin" isn't concept clearly put forth for us by the Scripture. In the same way, there is no guidance regarding the avoidance or scheduling of conception, by any means.

    That which isn't forbidden is permitted, though not everything lawful is helpful (to use Paul's language). Therefore, married believers need not be guilt ridden if they use their own wisdom to decide when to have children.

    Again, having only recently begun the journey out of a legalistic, moralistic framework, and toward understanding the freedom and overwhelming perfection of justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, I am appalled at anyone's willingness to submit themselves again to slavery to the law.

    What I see as an undercurrent in this discussion is a propensity not being made a new creation, being free in Christ, inexorably (via our new nature) leading to joy and sanctification. Instead, I see call back to law-keeping and various ways we may supposedly sanctify ourselves.

    My friend, I simply cannot go back with you.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mr. Fosi wrote, “It seems rather better that we start where the text starts and stop where the text stops. Then we don't have to twist and contort the text into our own pet frameworks.”

    I believe that I actually am starting and stopping with the text. I believe that you are failing to see the implications of the data being presented. When you are able to recognize one particular element being present in every single example, God is expecting you to infer the unstated implication. He is inviting you to form your life based on the Biblical data.

    Even if you don’t think that God is speaking to you on this issue through Scripture, He is speaking to you through your body. God made our bodies with a purpose. The penis was made for the vagina and the sperm for the egg, ultimately leading to new life. This does not mean that new life has to occur with every sex act. But we need to recognize that this is a purpose of the sex act, and that to do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it shouldn’t, is to purpose against the purpose of God. You have rightly discerned that the unitive nature of the sex act is what makes the two into one flesh. To think that we can place a physical or chemical barrier between our physical bodies to block this union of flesh from being completed in the sex act without distortion, and at the same time not be contradicting the purpose of God for our bodies, does not cohere with our faith in God as a purposeful Creator.

    We have freedom to live as God-slaves by the grace and mercy of God to present our members as instruments of righteousness. Legalism and moralism will fail to obtain the righteousness of God, which can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ by the grace that bestows what faith asks for.

    You also wrote, “ ‘Sex for the purpose of procreation and all else is sin’ isn't concept clearly put forth for us by the Scripture.”

    But this is not our position. We believe that procreation “is a purpose of the sex act, and that to do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it shouldn’t, is to purpose against the purpose of God.”

    As for Hyper Calvinism, I think that it is rather the proponent of contraception who follows their lead because, whereas the Catholic holds everything in a wholesome balance, the one using contraception has chosen to run with only one aspect of the sex act at the expense of another.

    With love in Christ,
    Pete Holter

    ReplyDelete
  86. I had written, “The historical narrative was written to give us examples for our instruction.”

    You responded, “Or rather it is to show how much God has loved us and how great is His sovereign glory in accomplishing His purposes in spite of man's sin. It is a clear view of how it is that we are sinful and have personally sinned but also how God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself while we were still rebels, dead in our sin.”

    I was thinking of Paul in what I had said (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11). But, Amen! to your response. Matt Maher has a great song on the Eucharist where he says, “History shows the love of the Ancient Father for His One and Only Son”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v-nEc2JEiY. It’s a great lyric in a great song. :)

    Funny about your name!

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  87. I believe that I actually am starting and stopping with the text. I believe that you are failing to see the implications of the data being presented. When you are able to recognize one particular element being present in every single example, God is expecting you to infer the unstated implication. He is inviting you to form your life based on the Biblical data.

    Yes, I understand that this is your position but I don't agree. By your own words, you are inferring unstated things which is the very definition of "moving beyond the text". I don't understand your willingness to infer new commands. It seems to me that the God of the Scripture isn't one prone to make inference and rely on implication to get His point across. We can thus rely on what has actually been said rather than try and plumb the unspoken depths of God's intentions.

    Even if you don’t think that God is speaking to you on this issue through Scripture, He is speaking to you through your body. God made our bodies with a purpose. The penis was made for the vagina and the sperm for the egg, ultimately leading to new life. This does not mean that new life has to occur with every sex act. But we need to recognize that this is a purpose of the sex act, and that to do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it shouldn’t, is to purpose against the purpose of God.

    Yes, I understand your point here as well. But your unwillingness to apply this argument to other areas of living is odd. It is broad concept that, by virtue of how you derived it, must be applied widely to all areas of life and creation. Something on the order of what Steve recently posted here.

    If an argument is to be made for the purposes of body parts, then we must apply it to all body parts. Thus, the feet were made for locomotion from point A to point B and thus we abuse our feet when we run in a circle around a track or back and forth on a field of play; we are frustrating the will of God by not using them for all their intended purposes and in fact inventing ways to use them that were never intended. The same could be said for a man born with no arms who uses his feet as if they were hands. If you aren't happy with those examples, Steve gave many more (though some are weaker than others).

    The sum total of the argument from purposes and the accompanying assignment of sin to the separation or emphasis of one purpose over the other is that we are virtually at all times not using all our manifest parts for all their purposes and we are often emphasizing some properties over another. By focusing on one set of parts (sex organs) or the behavior for which they were intended (sex), you fall prey to a form of special pleading. To avoid it, you must apply this to all areas of human life and anatomy and thus you have condemned all persons, believers and unbelievers alike.

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  88. You have rightly discerned that the unitive nature of the sex act is what makes the two into one flesh. To think that we can place a physical or chemical barrier between our physical bodies to block this union of flesh from being completed in the sex act without distortion, and at the same time not be contradicting the purpose of God for our bodies, does not cohere with our faith in God as a purposeful Creator.

    And so again, we have an attempt to expand what you acknowledge as a rightly discerned definition of "two become one flesh". On the definition that Paul used in 1 Cor 6, where it is sexual activity (undefined, you'll note) that unitive. Here you are wedging in "physical or chemical barrier between physical bodies to block this union of flesh" then you add "without distortion". There is no Biblical concept of "distorted" consensual marital sex, making yours another alien addition to the Word as delivered. Your additional wedges of "chemical and physical barrier" create more problems for your argument.

    If there can be chemical or physical barriers that keep a sex act form being unitive, is it sperm entering a woman's uterus that makes it unitive? Or is it the potential, since you say not all sex must produce children, fertilization of the egg? It must be one of these since these are what barrier and hormone contraceptives block and the use of these things is what you are arguing against.

    No matter which you choose, you make Paul to say that it is the entering of sperm into the woman's uterus or the potential fertilization of the egg that makes the act unitive. Thus, if neither of those occurs (which I am sure you can imagine ways to prevent them without using barriers or chemicals), the act is not unitive and we can have sex with prostitutes so long as we avoid those two specific parts of sex. That clearly changes what Paul was saying, thus your wedges and additions are in error and should be rejected.

    We have freedom to live as God-slaves by the grace and mercy of God to present our members as instruments of righteousness. Legalism and moralism will fail to obtain the righteousness of God, which can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ by the grace that bestows what faith asks for.

    This is good to hear affirmed, but I notice that you passed over the idea of having a new nature in Christ, one that cannot help but do good works. Does this mean that you do not agree that our regenerative nature makes assurance that we will do good deeds? Is sanctification simply work on the part of the believer?

    Continuing...

    ReplyDelete
  89. You also wrote, “ ‘Sex for the purpose of procreation and all else is sin’ isn't concept clearly put forth for us by the Scripture.”

    But this is not our position. We believe that procreation “is a purpose of the sex act, and that to do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it shouldn’t, is to purpose against the purpose of God.”


    And thus, we have an great illustration of the problem laid before us in the phrase "a purpose" and "[doing] something with the intention of causing the purpose to fail".

    This is a good illustration of the basis of your argument that, once we have inferred one of God's unstated purposes (for how can we be sure we have correctly identified them all?), we are sinning if we do not fulfill it.

    This puts the onus squarely on the believer to correctly infer these unstated purposes and then comport their life with each of them. This seems to go against the idea of having a new nature that, by itself, will please God. It also sets up another standard impossible for believers to meet. This is the sort of broad sweeping condemnation that God had to save us from, only this time, it is condemnation not from the clear commands of God (his good and perfect law) but from purposes inferred by men.

    You may say, "It isn't on the believer to correctly discern these unstated divine purposes, that's what we have the Church for." And to that I will say, that doesn't save you from the fruits of the "separating or differentially emphasizing the purposes of any natural act or member is sin" argument. You have heaped condemnation upon believers. But according to Paul, we have no condemnation in Christ Jesus because God's perfect righteousness has been imputed to us by grace through our faith in Christ.

    As for Hyper Calvinism, I think that it is rather the proponent of contraception who follows their lead because, whereas the Catholic holds everything in a wholesome balance, the one using contraception has chosen to run with only one aspect of the sex act at the expense of another.

    Whether what you are advocating is "wholesome" or in "balance" is something that would have to be argued. From here, it looks like what you are advocating is neither wholesome nor balanced because it makes sins of actions that are not identified as sins.

    My analogy wasn't one of "running with one purpose at expense to another". Rather it is one of "I (or we) will use our logical framework to discover God's unstated purposes" and how that leads to conclusions that contradict or alter the plain meaning of Scripture. Such is the case with your additions definition of what makes sex unitive.

    Once again, I see a fundamental difference in what we understand the message and purpose of the whole Scripture to be. I also see fundamental differences in what we hold in authority and how we understand what the Bible means (in one place or overall).

    I don't see how we can come to agreement given these basic differences.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mr. Fosi wrote, “There is no Biblical concept of "distorted" consensual marital sex, making yours another alien addition to the Word as delivered. Your additional wedges of "chemical and physical barrier" create more problems for your argument.”

    Distortions of the marital act would be marital acts that don’t conform to the Biblical pattern. I don’t think I’ve made any additions. Every marital act detailed for us in Scripture, even when performed outside of marriage, was procreative. Anything else besides following this pattern would be “additional.” Also, I am not inferring new commands. The positive injunction given to mankind is to be fruitful and multiply. This command is obeyed when we have sex. God gives the growth.

    Mr. Fosi wrote, “No matter which you choose, you make Paul to say that it is the entering of sperm into the woman's uterus or the potential fertilization of the egg that makes the act unitive. Thus, if neither of those occurs (which I am sure you can imagine ways to prevent them without using barriers or chemicals), the act is not unitive and we can have sex with prostitutes so long as we avoid those two specific parts of sex. That clearly changes what Paul was saying, thus your wedges and additions are in error and should be rejected.”

    The egg and sperm were designed to be united through the sex act. This doesn’t mean that they have to unite as a result of each sex act, and sex is unitive even when they don’t unite as long as we don’t do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it naturally wouldn’t.

    The two (male and female) coming together in natural relations makes the act unitive in body – we become “one body with her” – because it’s in conformance with the natural purpose of the body. This is what’s happening when we have sex with a prostitute. The Bible teaches that prostituted sex is assumed to be procreative through the examples of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, Jephthah in Judges 11:1, and the two prostitutes in 1 Kings 3:16-28. So Paul is working with this understanding throughout his argument. This doesn’t mean that we can have sex with prostitutes. Although it is in conformity with nature to have uncontracepted sex with a prostitute of the opposite sex, it is immoral because sex is reserved to marriage.

    Have a blessed day!

    With love in Christ,
    Pete Holter

    ReplyDelete
  91. Every marital act detailed for us in Scripture, even when performed outside of marriage, was procreative

    How can a "marital" act be performed "outside of marriage"?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Rhology asked, “How can a ‘marital’ act be performed ‘outside of marriage’?”

    Immorally. :)

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  93. Wouldn't it thus be an EXTRAmarital act, not a marital act?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Distortions of the marital act would be marital acts that don’t conform to the Biblical pattern.

    Yes, I understand that you are able to define such a thing, but my point was that is no such concept as "distortions of consensual married sex" coming from Paul or any other Biblical author. It comes from your inferential grid.

    Also, I am not inferring new commands. The positive injunction given to mankind is to be fruitful and multiply.

    Yes, I understand the positive injunction as you've laid it out, however, it is coming from your faulty inferential grid.

    If this is command is given to each individual believer, then Paul was sinning by being celibate since he was not being fruitful, nor multiplying. He was also sinning by encouraging others to do the same. If he wasn't sinning by remaining celibate, I fail to see how married men and women are sinning by avoiding or scheduling conception. Both are contrary to the blanket injunction. You can argue that one is more "natural" than another (on the basis of your contested definition) but both are sins.

    The egg and sperm were designed to be united through the sex act. This doesn’t mean that they have to unite as a result of each sex act, and sex is unitive even when they don’t unite as long as we don’t do something with the intention of causing this purpose to fail when it naturally wouldn’t.

    I guess we'll drop the way you were using "physical and chemical barriers" then? Probably a good idea as that was a serious problem for your argument.

    I think I understand what your position is, the problem is that I have shown why your view is the product of a defective hermeneutic and why it thus causes things said by authors like Paul to be changed enough so as to be silly.

    You can always step back and provide a further layer of delineation and redefinition, but it doesn't help the underlying problem of where your original concept came from.

    The Bible teaches that prostituted sex is assumed to be procreative through the examples of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, Jephthah in Judges 11:1, and the two prostitutes in 1 Kings 3:16-28.

    I see. So your contention is there is only one sort of sexual contact that is recognized in scripture? And your support for this is the times in the Bible that men are recorded as having had sex with prostitutes? I suppose that leads naturally to your next statement:

    So Paul is working with this understanding throughout his argument.

    So we assume that Paul is working with this understanding though he writes nothing (anywhere in the NT) to indicate that this is his understanding. If Paul was working with the understanding that there is only one type of sexual contact when he was talking about sexual matters, that leaves off a list of other acts (that shall remain unnamed for now) that are generally taken to be sexual. On your position, Paul could not be speaking of these other types of acts, since his understanding was that there was only one type of sexual act. So then the sky's the limit, so long we avoid the one sort of sexual contact recognized by both Paul and the authors of the OT.

    I know that this isn't the position that you claim, but it is consequence of it. I suppose you will reply with further clarification from your inferential interpretive grid, but I am very unlikely to see it as useful.

    I appreciate your willingness to engage on this issue with good faith and without acrimony and I thank you for it. I do not concede any points that I have contested here. I will also not simply dismiss what you've presented but will continue to consider it in light of my continuing Biblical study.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hi Rhology!

    I just call it the marital act as a reminder that sex is to be reserved to marriage alone. Sex is the marital act. When the marital act is illicitly engaged in outside of marriage, we give it other names. But it relates to these illicit engagements in the relationship of substance to subsistence. The marital act is the substance that may illicitly subsist in an extramarital act. Is that a fair assessment? I don’t know. I’ll call it whatever you want. :)

    Another cool name. So what’s your name about? The Rho in Greek? You like to study words that begin with an R??? :)

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mr. Fosi wrote, “I appreciate your willingness to engage on this issue with good faith and without acrimony and I thank you for it. I do not concede any points that I have contested here. I will also not simply dismiss what you've presented but will continue to consider it in light of my continuing Biblical study.”

    Thanks, Mr. Fosi! I hope to see you around again sometime. May God bless you and your loved ones! I hope we get to worship together in the Catholic Church one day.

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  97. "One difference is that the condom blocks the [release] from completing one of its biological purposes, which is to project [stuff] toward the egg that they are designed to fertilize. The act of using [protection] contradicts this design and therefore contradicts the will of our Creator King."

    a) See the glove example above. It blocks one of the biological purposes of skin.

    b) Or pick antihistamines, which inhibit the biological function of histamine, by blocking it from attaching to histamine receptors.

    c) Or pick sunglasses, which inhibit the biological function of light of whatever wavelengths are being blocked by the sunglasses.

    You allow each of a-c, yet prohibit protection, thereby demonstrating that you are not applying a consistent standard.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dozie wrote: "Protestantism is a very "comfortable" religion."

    Dozie should really read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

    ReplyDelete