Part the IV - Poor Luther, and A Semi Wrap-Up

First off, let me thank Nobody for his 2 cents (although I value it as much more...I mean, at least dollar or two...) Like usual, he does a great job of bringing the issue to a clear intersection, and then commences to give it a 'beat down' with his down-to-earth logic. And to steal a quote from Dr. Mohler:
"I am thankful this morning we're here to talk theology. This is good and healthy. It is a sign of maturity. We may be the last people alive who can have a disagreement. If we can no longer talk theology we're soon to taste the dust of death. I'm so thankful we're talking theology because it recognizes the significant and sovereign work of God that gave this denomination a second chance. If it wasn't for the conservative resurgence we may be here considering some resolution on homosexuality."

And so I'll continue:

Poor little Luther. It is obvious that we can't take everything he ever said as golden -- cause then we'd all be paedobaptizers -- and that stuff just don't fly. However, I do think that we are too quick at times, to dismiss his comments on these finer points of theology as 'just Luther'. Oh sure, his 95 thesis were 'right on', but he's got to be nuts if he thinks marriage centers around procreation. And that's just it...It wasn't just Luther who believed that marriage 'without the responsibility of offspring' was unbiblical -- it was the entire weight of historic Protestantism. Were they all nuts too? Or just poor misguided theologians who just were not 'up with the times'? We look to them as reformers of Christ's church, and defenders of the faith 'once for all delivered to the saints' - but simply brush aside their views on marriage and child bearing. Okay, so birth control methods have changed. Genesis 1:38 hasn't. Just because Wesley and Calvin weren't around when Pfizer released the 'male pill' doesn't mean they can't exegete scripture. Some things like marriage and birth control transcend the bounds of modernity. It is easy to spot those doctrines in which the 'heros of the faith' diverge - modes of baptism, free will v. predestination, etc., - but in issues in which they all agree - we have the burden of proof on our shoulders, and not the other way around. If we can not prove from Scripture that God ordains the use of birth control in marriage -- why do we think we have the right to assume it as true? The only clear cut biblical evidence that remotely addresses the issue at face-value is 'against' it's use - not for it (Onan in Genesis 38). But still, that is not enough to force the issue to a head. I just can not see how one can come down on the affirmative side of birth control with no biblical support, and yet still act as if it is clearly a question of stewardship and none other.

The Song Of Solomon Problem. Okay, its not a problem, but I thought that would make for a nice intro line. SOS seems like it would cause some trouble for the "marriage is chiefly for procreation" side of this debate, but it doesn't make the case for "marriage is chiefly for pleasure" either. It beautifully describes the passionate love and affection between a married couple - yes. Does it speak of birth control? Nope. That's an important observation there. All that intimacy, all that pleasure - and yet no birth control. They must've been crazy! Don't they know they could've had kids... Oh, the horror! haha. And that is my point: SOS describes all the marital pleasure that someone could imagine, and yet does not remove the 'responsibility of offspring'. Let me clarify the issue again: Marital intercourse without the "natural" responsibilty of offspring is unbiblical. That fact can not be denied. Rather than dismiss that notion, SOS validates it more!

The Sovereignty of God in Birth Control. God is Sovereign. Yes or No? Yes! Good job. You get a gold star. And now to another question: Because God is sovereign, does that remove the responsibilty of man? No. Okay, you are 2 for 2. Now let's connect the dots. We know God is sovereign in child bearing, just as he is in saving souls. But just as we can't stop preaching the gospel (as it is a means to salvation), we can not prohibit the 'natural use of the woman/man' because it is a means in God's plan of procreation. We could sit back and say, "If God really wanted to save souls, then me sitting on my butt and refusing to evangelize won't stop him" and "If God really wanted us to have children, then the pill wouldn't stop him either". And we thereby REMOVE HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. That is the heart of birth control. It allows actions that before were inextricably linked to child bearing, to be responsibility free - without repercussions (not meant to be used in the negative sense). That just doesn't seem to be a God thing to me, it seems more of an abuse of Christian liberty that in fact isn't a liberty that Christians were meant to enjoy.

Hoops and Hurdles. It really seems to me, that the marital use of birth control seeks to put hoops and hurdles in the way of God and child birth. Not that a pill could stay the hand of God, but can it not be a feeble human attempt to do just that? Birth control gives man some sense of control over his situation. It allows him to take his eyes off God's providence and focus on his own wisdom and chemical power. Other medicinal uses are different. There is biblical evidence that we are to seek such things as would keep us healthy, and to pray for healing. But none that we should pray for barrenness. I wonder how many Christian couples pray to God that they do not have children. What would a prayer like that be like? I think it may be similar to what Spurgeon said about Arminian prayer:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,
"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. "

Man would like to think he has the right and the power to control life. It is one of his innermost desires. "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire" Psalm 10:3 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
But with something as important as the creation/obstruction of human life, man can not afford to exercise his so-called 'glorious free-will', at the expense of God's will for marriage. In the end, the stance against birth control is a matter that has centuries of orthodox teaching behind it, and more importantly, at least some, peripheral biblical support. Much more than can be said in support of its use.

It seems to me to be an easy call.
Brother Hank

--
Look for more of the interview to come...