Calvinists still condemn contraceptives as John Calvin

[saintboniface]

Do Calvinists still condemn contraceptives just as John Calvin did? If not, why?

If you are answering, please let me know what particular community you are speaking in regards to - such as Christian Reformed, or Reformed, etc.

 

[Skala]

Do Calvinists still condemn contraceptives just as John Calvin did? If not, why?

If you are answering, please let me know what particular community you are speaking in regards to - such as Christian Reformed, or Reformed, etc.

Being a Calvinist has very little, if anything, to do with the actual man John Calvin.

"Calvinist" is just a nickname for a person who agrees with the Synod of Dordt's rejection of Arminianism. (TULIP) It has nothing to do with John Calvin's personal life, opinions, beliefs, etc.

Your question is akin to asking "Do modern Arminians still wear wigs the way James Arminius did?!?!?!"

 

[saintboniface]

Being a Calvinist has very little, if anything, to do with the actual man John Calvin.

"Calvinist" is just a nickname for a person who agrees with the Synod of Dordt's rejection of Arminianism. (TULIP) It has nothing to do with John Calvin's personal life, opinions, beliefs, etc.

Your question is akin to asking "Do modern Arminians still wear wigs the way James Arminius did?!?!?!"

I see. Still the same though, what do the faiths who adhere to the 5 points of Calvinism think of contraceptives?

 

[Skala]

I see. Still the same though, what do the faiths who adhere to the 5 points of Calvinism think of contraceptives?

I'm not sure that there would be a universal opinion on that, because I don't see how the two topics are related at all or how one's view on one would influence his view on the other.

 

[saintboniface]

I'm not sure that there would be a universal opinion on that, because I don't see how the two topics are related at all or how one's view on one would influence his view on the other.

Five point Calvinists don't have an opinion on the sin of Onan? Do they have an opinion on homosexual acts or on drunkenness?

 

[Skala]

Five point Calvinists don't have an opinion on the sin of Onan? Do they have an opinion on homosexual acts or on drunkenness?

I'm sure they have an opinion on it. I'm just not sure what it has to do with being a Calvinist or Arminian/non-Calvinist.

Are you suggesting that if one believes TULIP is true, that would somehow influence his opinion on the sin of Onan? Or if he doesn't believe TULIP is true, that might altar his opinion, too?

I fail to see the link between the two.

 

[saintboniface]

I'm sure they have an opinion on it. I'm just not sure what it has to do with being a Calvinist or Arminian/non-Calvinist.

Are you suggesting that if one believes TULIP is true, that would somehow influence his opinion on the sin of Onan? Or if he doesn't believe TULIP is true, that might altar his opinion, too?

I fail to see the link between the two.

I have a similar question going that asks Christians in general the same thing. Because I live in area swamped with the Dutch I wanted to get a specific response from that population. So no, I am not trying to somehow tie the acceptance of TULIP to the acceptance or non-acceptance of contraceptives.

There is an overall argument that can be made that the Catholic Church is the only Christian faith that condemns contraceptives. If contraceptives truly are evil this would be evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that it claims to be. Though I am not trying to make that argument in this particular thread - the only purpose here is to ascertain that five point Calvinists no longer condemn contraceptives as all Christians had in the past.

 

[Skala]

I have a similar question going that asks Christians in general the same thing. Because I live in area swamped with the Dutch I wanted to get a specific response from that population. So no, I am not trying to somehow tie the acceptance of TULIP to the acceptance or non-acceptance of contraceptives.

There is an overall argument that can be made that the Catholic Church is the only Christian faith that condemns contraceptives. If contraceptives truly are evil this would be evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that it claims to be. Though I am not trying to make that argument in this particular thread - the only purpose here is to ascertain that five point Calvinists no longer condemn contraceptives as all Christians had in the past.

Interesting argument. However, you are confusing categories. The Roman Catholic Church is a church, an organized religion. Calvinism is simply a set of doctrines. There is no such thing as "The Calvinist church".

 

[saintboniface]

Interesting argument. However, you are confusing categories. The Roman Catholic Church is a church, an organized religion. Calvinism is simply a set of doctrines. There is no such thing as "The Calvinist church".

Your icon shows Baptist. I didn't know Baptists adhere to the 5 points - or is it just some Baptist communities that do? What are a few of the largest communities that adhere to the 5 points if you don't mind?

 

[Metal Minister]

Do Calvinists still condemn contraceptives just as John Calvin did? If not, why?

If you are answering, please let me know what particular community you are speaking in regards to - such as Christian Reformed, or Reformed, etc.

An interesting thought here. As Skala has pointed out, Calvin the man and Calvinism are not the same. That said, I think that you may find most who would consider themselves calvinist to believe that if God's plan included a pregnancy, that contraception wouldn't be an issue. (He certainly didn't have any problem with our Lord, and there wasn't sex involved in that at all! )

 

[saintboniface]

An interesting thought here. As Skala has pointed out, Calvin the man and Calvinism are not the same. That said, I think that you may find most who would consider themselves calvinist to believe that if God's plan included a pregnancy, that contraception wouldn't be an issue. (He certainly didn't have any problem with our Lord, and there wasn't sex involved in that at all! )

Thanks for the comment, but I don't like the logic. It would be similar to saying that it doesn't matter whether me shooting my enemies is a sin or not because if it is God's plan for my enemies to live a long life He will make sure they are wearing bullet proof vests at the right time.

 

[Metal Minister]

Thanks for the comment, but I don't like the logic. It would be similar to saying that it doesn't matter whether me shooting my enemies is a sin or not because if it is God's plan for my enemies to live a long life He will make sure they are wearing bullet proof vests at the right time.

I think you misunderstood. What I said was meant a bit tongue in cheek. (Hence the smiley.)

 

[saintboniface]

I think you misunderstood. What I said was meant a bit tongue in cheek. (Hence the smiley.)

 

[myhopeisfound]

I have a similar question going that asks Christians in general the same thing. Because I live in area swamped with the Dutch I wanted to get a specific response from that population. So no, I am not trying to somehow tie the acceptance of TULIP to the acceptance or non-acceptance of contraceptives.

There is an overall argument that can be made that the Catholic Church is the only Christian faith that condemns contraceptives. If contraceptives truly are evil this would be evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that it claims to be. Though I am not trying to make that argument in this particular thread - the only purpose here is to ascertain that five point Calvinists no longer condemn contraceptives as all Christians had in the past.

Haven't been here in awhile, but came to poke around and for some reason this thread caught my attention. Interesting posts.

I'll just chime in with- It is true that the Roman Catholic Church condemns contraception (for now?), but my Roman Catholic friends and co-workers still use it, some even promoted it and if you go on certain Catholic forums you can read differing opinions on the matter. So here is my question...

Because a certain church "government" believes contraception is unbiblical and unGodly, does that make them the True Church? And what if their attendees don't follow that government's stipulations.

 

[saintboniface]

Haven't been here in awhile, but came to poke around and for some reason this thread caught my attention. Interesting posts.

I'll just chime in with- It is true that the Roman Catholic Church condemns contraception (for now?), but my Roman Catholic friends and co-workers still use it, some even promoted it and if you go on certain Catholic forums you can read differing opinions on the matter. So here is my question...

Because a certain church "government" believes contraception is unbiblical and unGodly, does that make them the True Church? And what if their attendees don't follow that government's stipulations.

Thanks for your question. It is true that the Catholic Church condemns contraceptives. This has been a constant teaching of the Church and will not change.

Your Catholic friends are either heretics, dissenters, or ignorant of the Church's teachings. Essentially, in layman's terms, your friends are in very bad standing with the Catholic Church and with God or they are ignorant. The Church teaches that heretics and dissenters are in a state of mortal sin, of which one cannot have eternal life without repentance/forgiveness.

Whether some or most of the alleged adherents to a faith believe or dis-believe in a core teaching of the faith is not relevant to the truth of the teaching. It has more to do with the ridiculousness of these individuals who identify themselves as a certain faith (namely, Catholic), yet disagree with the core teachings (namely, condemnation of contraception).

The belief that contraception is sinful does not cause a certain church to be the true church. However, since, by in large, the Catholic Church is the only faith that still condemns contraceptives, if one comes to the conclusion that contraceptives are condemned by God, wouldn't they have to look at the Catholic Church's claim of being the true Church? I find the Catholic Church to be the true Church for several reasons, but since I also know contraceptives are sinful, it only makes it more certain to me that the Catholic Church is what she claims. All other faiths that I know of approve of contraceptives or even promote them (despite all Christians unanimously rejecting contraceptives just 100 years ago or so).

 

[hedrick]

In my view as a Presbyterian (PCUSA) it depends upon how contraceptives are used. If used to facilitate one-night stands, I disapprove (though not of the contraception so much as the one-night stand). If used by a married couple to control the timing of pregnancies I don't see a problem.

Onan used withdrawal to avoid a specific duty. Couples do not have a duty to have the maximum possible number of children.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Do Calvinists still condemn contraceptives just as John Calvin did? If not, why?

If you are answering, please let me know what particular community you are speaking in regards to - such as Christian Reformed, or Reformed, etc.

Condoms and birth control pills were available during John Calvin's time? Exactly what type of contraceptive did John Calvin condemn? A direct source citation would be helpful.

Btw, what would any of this prove one way or the other? Just curious. Be fruitful and multiply like rabbits.

 

[saintboniface]

Condoms and birth control pills were available during John Calvin's time? Exactly what type of contraceptive did John Calvin condemn? A direct source citation would be helpful.

Btw, what would any of this prove one way or the other? Just curious. Be fruitful and multiply like rabbits.

Condoms were certainly used long before the time of John Calvin. Effective birth control pills were not available though certain potions were. The potions ranged from completely ineffective to having some contraceptive properties. Of course, none of this really matters for the purpose of my question because spilling the seed in a bag, on the ground, expunging it from the vagina, etc have no moral difference.

John Calvin called coitus interruptus (withdrawal, spilling seed) a monstrous act.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

Commentary on Genesis 38
Verse 10. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD . Less neatly the Jews speak about this matter. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

John Calvin's Bible Commentary - Genesis 38

What does it prove? At the very least it proves that either John Calvin himself didn't know how to interpret the bible or most modern Calvinists don't know how to interpret the bible. Either way it is a very awkward situation.

Be fruitful and multiply like Rabbits? That is what the bible says minus the rabbits part. Self-mastery could be used at times as well if you don't want to start growing fur and long ears.

 

[saintboniface]

In my view as a Presbyterian (PCUSA) it depends upon how contraceptives are used. If used to facilitate one-night stands, I disapprove (though not of the contraception so much as the one-night stand). If used by a married couple to control the timing of pregnancies I don't see a problem.

Onan used withdrawal to avoid a specific duty. Couples do not have a duty to have the maximum possible number of children.

Ok, not to facilitate a one night stand, but how about by a steady loving unmarried couple?

The reason sex is designated by God for married spouses is because the proper setting for raising a child is a mother and a father in a permanent relationship. When the possibility of procreation is removed from the act, there is no longer an argument that sex should be reserved for married couples.


If sex can be used as a sign of love and without the possibility of procreation, why can't loving non-married couples engage in sex to show love for one another? Or one step further, why can't loving non-married “couples” of the same gender have “sex” to show love for one another?


It is never licit to remove the possibility of procreation from the marital act. If it were, then sex among non-married couples would be licit because there is no reason they should be married.

 

[Skala]

What does it prove? At the very least it proves that either John Calvin himself didn't know how to interpret the bible or most modern Calvinists don't know how to interpret the bible. Either way it is a very awkward situation.

Be fruitful and multiply like Rabbits? That is what the bible says minus the rabbits part. Self-mastery could be used at times as well if you don't want to start growing fur and long ears.

Did you know that most "Calvinists" today are Calvinists because of the Synod of Dordt's rejection of Arminianism and not because of Calvins direct teachings and writings? (Calvin was dead 50 years before "TULIP" was coined by the Synod of Dordt)

Take me as an example. I call myself a Calvinist because I affirm TULIP. But I've never read a single thing Calvin ever wrote.

So really, what does it matter what Calvin taught? It's not "awkward" for me in the least. Calvin could have believed in purple unicorns who shot rainbows out of their butts, but that isn't awkward for me, because I'm only a Calvinist because I believe TULIP. Calvin the man has literally no relevance for me.