What the New
By Mary Van Nattan
It is common these days to assume that if someone is KJV only; home schools; believes in courtship; and is a member of a rip snorting, fire breathing, soul winning church that they will also believe that all forms of birth control are evil. "Naturally," they will know that it is "God's will" for every married couple of child bearing years to have as many kids as they can and just "trust God" regardless of the consequences. (It is seldom taken into consideration that it might be God's will, and to His glory, for some people not to have children, but we will take that up in another article.) Those who do not follow this plan are considered "unspiritual" and of little faith.
First and foremost, it must be stated that we are against any form of birth control that endangers the life of an already conceived baby. As far as we know, at this time that includes all chemical forms of birth control. They are apparently all abortificient, causing the womb to be inhospitable to any baby that is conceived inspite of the medication. This is murderous.
But, to go from this point to the conclusion that all forms of birth control are evil is a big jump.
So "what saith the scripture"?
We are in the New Testament Church era, and the verses in the Old Testament that refer to child bearing as a repiano coversd, heritage, etc. are in the context of blipish obedience to the law of God. Deuteronomy 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he spiano coverse unto thy fathers:...14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. This is the context of the famous and much quoted Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his repiano coversd. The repiano coversd is for obeying the law of God given by Moses to the bliptes under the covenant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What does the New Testament say on this subject to Christians under the covenant of the blood of Jesus Christ? A simple list of the verses would be useful.
1. VERSES SAYING BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG: NONE
2. VERSES SAYING CHILDREN ARE A REpiano coversD FOR FAITHFULNESS TO THOSE RECKONED UNDER GRACE: NONE
3. VERSES THAT SAY A COUPLE MUST HAVE CHILDREN, EVEN IF ADOPTED, TO BE RIGHT WITH GOD: NONE
4. VERSES SAYING HOW MANY OR HOW FEW CHILDREN A COUPLE MUST HAVE: NONE
5. VERSES THAT SAY A WOMAN CAN TAKE CHARGE OF OTHER MEN'S WIVES IN THIS ISSUE: NONE
(This, of course, would not be popular with all the Baptist popelets who are using this doctrine to fill their pews with tithers - a plan very reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Number 5 actually has verses that say the exact opposite.
1Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
Something is gravely wrong with this anti-birth control teaching when we realize how often women are found instructing other men's wives on the subject. My Dad points out that these women are in essence entering other men's bedrooms through their wives. Women who would never dream of dictating behavior in another man's bedroom, will do so in this issue because "it's so important." If it is so important then why didn't God say something about it in the New Testament?
Lord willing, my Dad will add his thoughts from the scripture to deal with the many other fallacies relating to this subject which need to be directed to and dealt with by the God given heads of the homes, not the women.
"Woman's Health and Baby's Death. Users of the "old" high-dosage birth control pills experienced relatively severe side effects. However, many of these pills were generally considered non-abortifacient in their two-fold ("biphasic") modes of action. The pills would thicken cervical mucus and inhibit ovulation, but they would generally not inhibit implantation of the blastocyst (the five-day old, 256-cell developing human being) in the uterine lining.
However, the new low-dosage pills are "triphasic." They have three modes of action; they thicken cervical mucus, inhibit ovulation, and block implantation. Therefore, the "new" Pills are all abortifacient in nature.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in its 1984 pamphlet entitled 'Facts About Oral Contraceptives,' said that 'Though rare, it is possible for women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical mucus thick and 'inhospitable' to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining. These actions explain why the minipill works, as it generally does not suppress ovulation.' "
The Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by The American
Disclaimer: Versions other than the KJB, and possibly some content.
There are other methods of birth control
that are not threatening to an unborn baby.
We would recommend pursuing these if you feel that you need one.]
background & graphics by mary vannattan