Please remember, my topic is not birth control outside marriage, I am considering here, the domain - birth control within marriage!
I am a bit skeptical on the arguments mentioned by the pastor for the contra position, but the one on the pro position could have brought forth his arguments much better from Scripture. The contra has some red herring arguments and straw man arguments which should have been fairly answered by the one on the pro side.
A few points:
-It has been claimed that in ages past, orthodox Christian leaders have always been contra to birth control. Therefore, we should be contra too.
ME: We have no article of faith on this, but the contra position holds this as dogma, a type of Law.
-It has been claimed that God's purpose for sex in marriage is for pleasure AND childbearing.
ME: This statement is an interpretation of the biblical data, notice I highlighted the AND, meaning both, i.e you must not separate. Actually most Christians who lived in the ancient world considered only the latter, sex is ONLY for childbearing, nothing else.
But what if the Biblical data says that sex in marriage may lead to childbearing? In other words, it is not an AND, but an IMPLY. It all hangs around on God's intention for sex, how is it to be used? I think that is the question.
Meaning, God intended sex for married people, it may have the consequence of childbearing. It may preclude of course that the spouses would like to copulate because they do want to have a child. It may also mean they want to do what the birds and the bees do because they just want to without in mind to childbearing. But the contra position says birth control in marriage is wrong because it violates God's intention for sex. Do I have Biblical evidence against this position? I think so, that is why I am skeptical for the traditional contra position.
Consider 1 Cor 7:
3B)">(B)">B) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5C)">(C) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again,D)">(D) so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6Now as a concession,E)">(E) not a command, I say this.a]">[a] 7F)">(F) I wish that all wereG)">(G) as I myself am. ButH)">(H) each has his own gift from God,I)">(I) one of one kind and one of another.
8To the unmarried and the widows I say thatJ)">(J) it is good for them to remain singleK)">(K) as I am. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control,L)">(L) they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul seems to have a practical understanding of things. In fact he says if you cannot contain yourself, then you should marry, it pertains to sexual passion.
Sex is intended by God to be exercised in the realm of marriage, and the above passage bears that they are to go and engage in what is lawfully theirs. It does not mean that they have to get together for the purpose of having children. In fact it does not suggest that at all. It is silent.
If it is true that sex and childbearing should go together then what do you say to a person who decides to be single without any relationship, they are just happy being single with no relationship? They must be violating the command to multiply, correct? He must be practicing birth control is it not?
Any thoughts on this?