Calvinists still condemn contraceptives as John Calvin

[kw5kw]

The sin of Onan is the intentional spilling of seed.

Onan's sin was the refusal to impregnate his brothers wife to leave him with an heir as was the custom (and the law of the land) of the time. The original Hebrew meant for Onan to act as a husband of the widow of Er who left her (Tamar) without a heir. It is also probable that Onan coveted his brother's inheritance to combine it all as his own. Therefore, Onan pulled out before consummating the act.

It was so important to Israel that when Moses pinned Deuteronomy xxv:5~10 it stated exactly what the duties of a brother-in-law was in case his sister-in-law was left childless. This law was remembered by Boaz. Ruth iv:10ff

John Calvin puts it like this:

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.

And, it's really funny that my hard bound printed copy of Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis Second Volume (c) 2003 Baker Books ISBN 0-8010-2440-4 p. 281 has a footnote that there is no comment on the tenth verse. Where did you come up with your commentary on Genesis xxxviii:10?

 

[saintboniface]

Onan's sin was the refusal to impregnate his brothers wife to leave him with an heir as was the custom (and the law of the land) of the time. The original Hebrew meant for Onan to act as a husband of the widow of Er who left her (Tamar) without a heir. It is also probable that Onan coveted his brother's inheritance to combine it all as his own. Therefore, Onan pulled out before consummating the act.

It was so important to Israel that when Moses pinned Deuteronomy xxv:5~10 it stated exactly what the duties of a brother-in-law was in case his sister-in-law was left childless. This law was remembered by Boaz. Ruth iv:10ff

And, it's really funny that my hard bound printed copy of Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis Second Volume (c) 2003 Baker Books ISBN 0-8010-2440-4 p. 281 has a footnote that there is no comment on the tenth verse. Where did you come up with your commentary on Genesis xxxviii:10?

Yes it is really funny!!!! You bought a hard cover book that is censored!!! That is funny. Wow Baker Books - omit the passage and also put a footnote saying there is no comment!!

Here, try these. The second one is Calvin College so you should be comfortable with that.

.
(Calvin, Genesis 2. part 16) Number 10 on that page

World Wide Study Bible ? Genesis 38:10 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I agree that the sin included what you mentioned above. I disagree that it was the only sinful part of the action. Suffice to say, there is merit to arguing the bible condemns contraceptive acts.