Ruth Grant

What if I said almost everything you, the reader, have learned about sex and marriage from the church was false? No, this paper will not give justification for pre-marital sex or other sexual “freedoms” taught by the left-wing Christian population. Rather, this paper is to all Christians, from every background and denomination. This is a call to examine and rethink our views for the purpose of marriage, sex, and family and, in particular, to relate this to our view of contraception. Most Protestants have been taught though children are a blessing from God, it is not required the marital act be procreative. The secondary benefits of sex like pleasure, unity, and companionship are good in and of themselves, they will say. Therefore, the question of birth control is largely tossed aside by most Protestants as a “Catholic problem.” But this question cannot be ignored! It is crucial to our Christian faith and knowing God. The approval of contraception from the majority of the church has some serious implications on how we as the church understand God’s sovereignty. As R.C. Sproul has said, “if God is not sovereign, [then] God is not God.” A proper understanding of God’s design for sex, marriage, and family gives us more insight into His sovereignty and His love and can cultivate a deeper relationship with Him. Therefore, Christians must believe the practice of contraception is contrary to God’s design for sex, marriage, and family and must be rejected in order to pursue holiness.

The issue of contraception is one of the most important yet ignored issues of the Christian faith. From the dawn of the early church until around 1930, the church at large has condemned its practice in all forms, whether by medicinal methods or by natural methods like the rhythm method or natural family planning (NFP). In 1930, the Anglican Church officially recognized the use of contraception under some circumstances in the Lambeth Conference. A year later, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the Federal Council of Churches, an ecumenical body that included Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Church of the Brethren denominations, made statements that defended limiting the family and advocated for the repeal of laws that restricted the use of contraception, particularly the Comstock Laws that prohibited the buying or selling of contraception, pornography, or other “lewd materials” (Carlson).

Though the church has always rejected this practice, it still had been a struggle and discussion within the church. Many church fathers and theologians commented on this issue because of how prevalent it is in every culture and how many secular ideas entered the church. Contraception in some form has been used since ancient times and it is seen throughout Scripture as an unholy practice of which God does not approve, as will be proven in the confirmation section. The purpose of this paper is to prove how important the issue of contraception is in the family life of a Christian and the consequences of accepting such a practice as it has some serious implications for the Christian’s view of God’s sovereignty and His role in the conception of children.

To help understand this thesis, four terms must be defined. “Contraception” can be defined as the deliberate use of any method, whether artificial or natural means such as natural family planning, or any sexual act that prevents the conception of a covenant child. There are several references to “covenant children” in this paper. By this, I mean children who are born to Christian parents and are therefore participants in the covenant of Grace God has made with His people. An abortifacient is chiefly a drug that causes abortions (Merriam-Webster). God’s design for sex, marriage, and family is couples be fruitful and multiply that they may produce covenant children and raise more disciples of Christ, who will live to glorify God. This idea will be expounded upon in the confirmation. Finally, the idea of pursuing holiness means the Christian will grow in his or her understanding of God and His holiness, seek to become more like Him, and to glorify Him through his or her marriage and family life.

In order to prove contraception is contrary to God’s design and must be rejected by the Christian, I will confirm three arguments: Most medical contraceptive methods are abortifacients and are therefore, murderous; using contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility; and Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. I will then refute three counterarguments: If God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived; sex in marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not; and whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture.

My first confirmation argument is most medical contraceptives are abortifacients and are therefore, muderous. These must be rejected as a legitimate method of family planning. The church has unfortunately accepted these methods. The common birth control methods generally approved of by Christians must be examined. Most Christians who have studied science and read the Bible about what God says about abortion would agree abortion is murder and therefore wrong. These Christians would agree a human life begins at conception. Most Christians, however, don’t understand how most contraceptives work and how secular culture has even redefined “pregnancy” and “conception.” Contraceptives such as “the pill,” the patch, the ring, IUDs, depo-provera shots, and emergency contraception such as ella and Plan B, can cause a very early abortion by prohibiting an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining (Pasquale and Cadoff).

All the contraceptives just mentioned except for the IUD combine the hormones estrogen and progestin. The combination of these two is meant to serve two primary purposes: to prevent ovulation, stopping an egg from releasing into the fallopian tubes, and also to thicken cervical mucus, which changes throughout the woman’s cycle and affects sperm’s ability to get through the cervix to fertilize an egg. These are the primary means used in the pill to prevent a pregnancy. However, there is a third method if the other two fail. The progestin interacts with the endometrium lining, making it a thinner, more hostile environment for an embryo to implant. All advocates of this kind of contraception will say it’s really not a baby until implantation. This completely redefines what a pregnancy is and when conception is. To be pro-life, you cannot argue a life begins at implantation and not at conception. It’s intellectually dishonest as the so-called “cluster of cells” formed at the time of conception is completely distinct with all 23 chromosomes he or she will have for life and is scientifically and biologically a distinct entity from the mother. There are disturbing statistics of how many abortions occur every year. These don’t even account for the possible millions of  unintended abortions due to these contraceptive methods. IUDs work a little differently. Many of them release copper into the uterus working as a spermicide as well as release progestin into the uterus to thicken cervical mucus and interfere with the balance of hormones in the endometrium lining (Pasquale and Cadoff). The synthetic progestin hormones interacting with the natural balance of progesterone in the body causes the endometrium to be an inhospitable environment for the implantation of an embryo, which is a serious ethical problem. This means an already-conceived child is potentially dying due to the inability to implant and receive nutrients from the mother. If you are truly pro-life, it is intellectually dishonest to approve of these methods as they act in a way that is entirely contrary to the pro-life position.

My second confirmation argument is the practice of contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility. It is clear in Scripture sex is designed to be practiced within the covenant of marriage. This is so children can be raised in a stable environment in a family. Sex was designed by God to create covenant children. This is made clear in Scripture. His desire for His followers is to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28, 9:1). This is not a mere blessing, it is a command. Imperatives in the Hebrew Bible are only expressed as requests or desire when an inferior is speaking to a superior. However in the Hebrew language, if a superior is talking to an inferior as God was talking to Adam and Eve, it is always a command (Hodge 129). This command is given explicitly and directly to couples joined together in marriage by God since creation. This is repeated twice: not only before the Fall to Adam and Eve, but post-flood to Noah and His sons also (Gen. 9:1). Therefore, to purposefully go against God’s created order and primary use of sex when He has given this great command is abominable.

It is important to note God throughout Scripture gives children as a blessing to those whom He favors. He opens Rachel’s womb in Genesis 30:22. The same language is also used when referring to Leah in God’s work in giving her children in Genesis 29:31. Samuel’s mother Hannah dealt with infertility and begged God for a child. God gave heed to her prayer and gave her Samuel. Lot’s daughters slept with their father in order to bear sons after fleeing Sodom. This was obviously a sinful act and God did not favor it, however we see with all of these women children were something to be desired and sought after. God’s people desired children, which was not a common attitude in the world around them. The pagan Babylonians at the time intentionally avoided conceiving and practiced forms of contraception in forms of herbs and potions, coitus interruptus, or the rhythm method (Hodge 53-80). It is important to understand this radical attitude of God’s people. Though stories like Lot’s daughters teach us a lesson of what not to do and show us a horrible way to go about having children, we understand how important it was they procreate and follow God’s command.

One of the most famous stories regarding sexual ethics in the Bible is the story of Onan. In Genesis 38, Onan’s brother Er is put to death because he is evil in the sight of Jehovah, and because his brother had no heir, Onan had to go into his sister-in-law and produce an heir for his brother. The narrative tells us he did this, but he “wasted his seed” on the ground, a term commonly been known to mean coitus interruptus. This was so grievous to God He struck Onan dead. This is not because of what he didn’t do (give an heir to his brother) but what he did do (waste his seed). Genesis 38:10 says, “But it was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, that which he did, so He put him to death as well.” Brian Harrison, head of the Theology department in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, comments this about Onan’s sin: “If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, his only offense, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act.” He continues to say when a marital, lawful sexual act takes place in Scripture, in English it is always translated to “going into” one’s wife or “knowing” one’s spouse. However, more explicit terms like “lying with” or “uncovering nakedness” and especially this explicit act described indicates something illicit and sinful. This is also proven in a clear reading of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 that the punishment for not fulfilling the law under this circumstance is not death, but for the woman and the man to go before the elders, the woman will pull off his sandal and spit in his face (v9). Therefore the sin of Onan has to do particularly with the contraceptive act, not just failing to give an heir to his brother.

Leviticus 18 is a portion of OT moral law that lays out a list of sexual sins God finds detestable. Some of these things include incestuous relationships, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, sleeping with a woman during her menstrual period, sleeping with your neighbor’s wife, homosexual activity, and bestiality to name a few. Most Christians would agree these things are unnatural relations that go against God’s created order in Eden, but many Christians don’t think about why they are unnatural. It is impossible for two men to reproduce. It is impossible for a man to reproduce with an animal. It is unlikely for a woman to conceive while on her period (something people in this time period would do to prevent conception). Incest is not healthy and can produce genetic problems for a child as a product of these relationships. These sins have one thing in common: it is impossible or nearly impossible to procreate. Other sins mentioned such as sleeping with a woman and her daughter or sleeping with your neighbor’s wife also contradict God’s design for marriage. It is possible to conceive a child in these acts, however it is not within the marriage covenant God designed. We can discern God, therefore, desires his children to have sex for the purpose of having and raising children born into the Covenant in the fear of the Lord, with all of the other benefits of sex such as pleasure and unity coming second to this purpose. More disciples of Christ are potentially created in the birth of children.

These sentiments are echoed in the NT in Paul’s condemnation of homosexual activity and unnatural relations with women in Romans 1. Paul’s description of homosexuality is the two combined words “male” and “bed.” The word for this is arsenokoites. These descriptions were used in the Old Testament and were echoed by Paul in the New Testament.  If Paul’s words are to be believed and homosexuality is still unnatural as it doesn’t produce children and is a waste of semen as Onan’s sin was, then it logically follows this is unnatural because it is not fulfilling the primary purpose of sex and is wrong because of that. Therefore, for Christians to believe homosexuality and all these other unnatural sins are wrong yet to affirm the practice of contraception is illogical.

All true Christians agree on the concept God is sovereign. However, the attitude toward acceptance of birth control, whether intentionally or unintentionally, implies God is sovereign over all, except over one’s fertility. The miracle of conception is seen as a purely naturalistic event. It is seen as an ability God has given to humans but one He is not actively involved in. This is simply a form of Christianized deism. No Christian would argue God is not actively involved in His creation, so why would one believe He is not sovereign and involved in this act He created for those who bear His image to produce more image bearers? God designed this earth and designed human beings especially so specifically it requires the presence of an Almighty God to create and sustain this complex life. We see all throughout Scripture God supernaturally intervenes in this natural process He has created and given to man. In Psalm 139:16, we see God sees our unformed substance and in His book were all written the days ordained for us. God knew people before they were born or conceived. Verse 13 says, “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me together in my mother’s womb.” Job also says in Job 10:10-11, “Did You not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese; clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews….” This verse is a poetic representation of the reproductive act: the term milk being semen and curdling like cheese meaning the joining to an egg to form a solid substance (Henry). This is a description of the Almighty God forming a child in the womb. God knows us before we even come into existence. One cannot read the Bible and deny God is sovereign over everything, including the formation of children in the womb. All people that come into existence have a purpose, as we see throughout Romans 9 as Paul talks about all those in Scripture whom God has raised up for His eternal purpose and to show His glory first and foremost such as Pharaoh, and Jacob and Esau. All of these people, whether good or bad, were part of God’s plan.

We also see in the stories of Rachel, Leah, Hannah, Sarah, Rebekah, and many other women in the Bible the language of the Lord “opening her womb” is used. To be faithful to the text, this should be interpreted literally. They still participated in the sexual act to conceive a child, but it was God that had to make the environment possible for them to conceive. It was considered a blessing from the Lord. For every one of her children except for Levi, Leah recognized those children were from the Lord. She says after the birth of Judah “this time I will praise the Lord” (Genesis 29:30). This was different from her response to Levi, in which she turned the glory on herself and said Jacob would now love her because she had born him three sons (v34). Rachel was barren for a long time, and seeing Leah had sons, she was upset. She told Jacob to give her children lest she die (30:1). Jacob rebuked her saying, “Am I in the place of God who has withheld you the fruit of the womb?” Jacob was angry at Rachel for not giving this credit to God and assuming it was Jacob’s fault. Part of the purpose of these stories is to show it is God that gives us children. These children are merely entrusted to us by God: “Children are a heritage of the Lord, offspring a reward from Him” (Psalm 127:3-5). This includes all children, both good and bad. Jesus died for all people without distinction. This means He died even for children who are awful or who grow up to be criminals. We cannot know what God has planned for any person who is born into this world, but we can trust that in all things, God will be glorified, “for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).

All things are under His dominion and belong to Him, therefore it is not our place as people to decide how many children we should have. That is not our responsibility. It is the Lord who gives and takes away. If Christians truly believe in God’s sovereignty and faithfully exegete these passages in context, then there is no need to plan what children to have and when. The blessing of children are dependent upon the Lord. Intentionally using contraceptive measures to ensure a child cannot come into the world is something the church for centuries condemned as something worse than murder, as will be discussed in my final confirmation argument.

My third confirmation argument is Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. This argument is one from the historic Christian church, from its conception to approximately 1930. In 1930, the Anglican church was the first protestant church to approve of the use of contraception. They allowed sex merely for the sole purpose of pleasure with no other purpose behind it as God intended. God designed sex to be pleasurable, but that is not its only purpose. The primary concern for couples is to please God by allowing the act to be procreative. To use sex for oneself and one’s own pleasure without the desire to please God by following His commands is hedonistic and wrong. Many other protestants followed suit in this hedonism. They argue there is no explicit Biblical condemnation of contraception. This is not valid. The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn many things. The word pedophilia is not specifically used in Scripture, but no Christian would make the argument it is not condemned in Scripture implicitly. The church for centuries until the Lambeth Conference in 1930 universally condemned contraception. These people include preachers, teachers, and influential Christians, celibate and married alike such as Augustine, John Calvin, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, David J. Engelsma, The Synod of Dort, Matthew Henry, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Knox, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, John Owen, John Wesley, the Westminster Divines (writers of the Westminster Standards in the 1640s), and many more (Hodge 35-38). This is not to say doctrine is decided by humans or the majority rules on morality. The issue at hand is implicitly talked about throughout Scripture. Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura. This does not mean the church should not learn from the teachings and confessions of the Christian church derived from Scripture alone. These faithful teachers of the Word have studied and have come to the same conclusion: contraception is wrong. Doctrinal unity throughout the ages shows faithfulness to the Word of God and the true Christian faith. There is and always has been division over certain doctrinal matters in the church, however, this was never one of them until recently. It is important for the church today to learn from its past and from faithful teachers of Scripture. All of the Christians previously mentioned have spoken in their works about the topic of contraception and all have come to the same conclusion: preventing a covenant child from coming into the world is wrong. Early church father John Chrysostom said,

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before conception? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. … Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His [natural] laws? … Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men — even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks….”

The point of Chrysostom is these parents are showing hate to their child God is planning to give them by making attempts to thwart His plan and never allowing that life to exist. So many children are not conceived every year due to the wide use of contraceptives. John Calvin said this in His Institutes:

We are not our own: therefore, neither our reason nor our will should dominate our plans and actions. We are not our own: therefore, let us not make the gratification of our flesh our end. We are not out own: therefore, as much as possible, let us forget ourselves and our own interests.

Rather we are God’s. Therefore, let us live and die to Him. We are God’s. Therefore, let His wisdom and His will govern all our actions. We are God’s, therefore, let us — in every way in all our lives — run to Him as our only proper end.”

This means everything we are belongs to God. Our lives, our bodies, and our spirits are His. Relying on His Holiness and sovereignty should be our aim in all of life and in our fertility. We should not aim to fulfill our hedonistic passions and use this gift solely for pleasure, a great secondary benefit God has given, but not His intended primary purpose (possibility of procreation). But as Calvin says, may we seek the Lord and run to Him as our only proper end.

The first counterargument I will refute is if God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived. Nothing can stand in the way of His purposes, therefore, it is appropriate to plan and use caution but also to trust His judgment and know He can override your plans. This line of reasoning sounds reasonable and even holy in some ways. Many protestants hold to this view. However, it is a skewed interpretation of God’s sovereignty, His will, and requires a skewed view of God’s design for sex. I have already discussed in my confirmation God’s design for sex is not exclusively for pleasure without the procreative aspect. This idea comes not from the Bible, but from the naturalistic view God is not actively involved in the creation of children in the womb and conception is solely a human ability. This idea is also not from Scripture but comes from naturalistic philosophies that have crept into the church since its infancy. With a closer examination of Scripture, it is clear this argument has too many holes.

Both sides of the argument share the presupposition God is sovereign. The pro contraception side, however, misunderstands the meaning of God’s sovereignty and His will for His people. God’s efficacious will shows His overarching rule and dominion over all things. Everything that occurs falls under God’s efficacious will. For example, it was God’s efficacious will for Joseph to be sold into slavery by His brothers, mistreated, interpret the Pharaoh’s dream, be given power, and eventually save the lives of his brothers during the famine. However, for Joseph to be mistreated and sold into slavery was not something God directly caused. The sinful acts that took place on the part of Joseph’s brothers that brought about God’s efficacious will fell under God’s permissive will. He was not the direct cause of the sin but used it to fulfill His purposes. The same can be said about Job. God was not the cause of the torture Job went through, He allowed Satan to torture Job under His permissive will. God could have divinely intervened in both cases but chose not to and used man’s sin for His ultimate purpose and for His own glory. This does not mean it is morally acceptable to use God’s sovereignty as an excuse for disobedience. God can use our mistakes for good, but is that a good excuse to continue to sin and shun what God desires of us? This is a similar line of reasoning Paul warned the church in Rome about on the topic of grace. Romans 6:1-2 says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Just as Christians may not continue to sin and rely on God’s grace, so Christians should not sin by ignoring God’s clear design and relying on His “sovereignty,”  meaning He will override our sin if need be. This is not what God would have us believe about Him. We should look at God’s sovereignty as a beautiful thing and as believers, seek to act within His will.

The second counterargument I will refute is sex within marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not. Greg Parsons makes the argument in his article, “Guidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,” since no children are mentioned in Song of Songs, he argues, then it is acceptable to have sex for only pleasure’s sake. This argument essentially presents an either/or statement: Either you can have sex for procreation OR you can have sex for pleasure. This is a false dichotomy. These two ideas are not contradictory to one another. God created sex for the purpose of conceiving children AND God created sex to be pleasurable.

There are seasons in life in which couples are infertile, miscarriages occur, or women hit menopause and are past their childbearing years. God allows the first two to happen under His permissive will. It is difficult to understand why God would allow such terrible things to happen, but Scripture says all things work together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28) and God uses evil for our good (Genesis 50:20). This does not mean that during these times, the primary purpose of sex should be overlooked. God can open the womb of the infertile as He did with Hannah and Scripture also tells us God is near to the broken hearted and saves such as have a contrite spirit (Psalm 34:18) as most will have when a tragedy like a miscarriage occurs. Sex should still be had in a manner that would allow for the conception of a child. As for women past the age of childbearing, sex should still be had in a manner that glorifies God with our bodies. God opened the wombs of Sarah and Elizabeth when they were too old to have children. God can still intervene and work His will in creating covenant children even in women who are post menopausal. He most likely will not, as these women were exceptions, however it is good to have sex during this time because there are secondary benefits to be had such as pleasure and unity.  Even in these times, it is a both/and event. The act must allow for procreation and is pleasurable and unifying simultaneously.

The argument sex is good in and of itself for pleasure and unity regardless of whether or not it is procreative is also a fantastic argument in favor of homosexual relationships. Most Protestant Christians who have studied Scripture all agree the Bible condemns homosexuality as it condemns many other sexual sins. In the confirmation section of this paper, the sins described in Leviticus 18 were discussed, of which homosexuality was one. When considering the question why homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, the unanimous response of Christians polled is twofold: first, it is not “intuitive” meaning the sexual organs of men are not made for one another nor are the sexual organs of women made for one another. Rather, they are made for the opposite sex. “Sex makes sense” when it is with the opposite, whereas it “doesn’t make sense” when with the same sex. Second, homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore a purpose of sex is removed from the act. Why does God institute marriage? His institution of marriage in Eden was to be fruitful and multiply. He created male and female in His image to reproduce so more bearers of His image could be conceived. The argument being made requires us to ask the question, “do homosexuals experience unity and pleasure in the sexual act?” The answer to that is “yes.” That act produces the same dopamine release and provides the same feelings as heterosexual acts. If God approves of sex within marriage for pleasure’s purposes regardless of whether or not conception could occur is essentially another application of the idea “God wants me to be happy.” If God just wants us to be happy, and homosexuals are happy in their relationship, then according to this logic homosexuality would be an acceptable method of expression. True Christians know our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever, borrowing from the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. His purposes for us is not that we be happy, but to worship Him as He is worthy of all our worship (Revelation 5:12). Making this argument is essentially making an argument in favor of any sexual sin one may wish.

The Bible is clear regarding God’s purpose for sex within marriage: God desires children to be brought forth as He wills (Genesis 1:28, 9:1) because they belong to Him and are a heritage from Him (Psalm 127:3). God is also clear about His disdain for sexual immorality throughout the Bible. The term used in the OT was zanah and the Koine Greek NT word used was porneia. Understanding the meaning of porneia in the NT strengthens the argument practicing contraception is sinful and refutes the argument the Bible does not speak to this issue.

The third counterargument I will refute states whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture. In order to refute this argument, it is important to understand the meaning of the term porneia. It is used throughout the NT, especially in Paul’s letters when referring to the broad idea of “sexual immorality.” Postmodern Christians popularly interpret that term as sex before marriage or sex outside of marriage. While sex was created to be practiced within the covenant of marriage and it is wrong to violate that principle, that is not exclusively what Paul is speaking about here (Hodge). The term was much broader than just sex outside of marriage. It translated more literally to “the misuse of the sexual act.” Throughout the NT specific sexual sins like sex outside of marriage, which is a form of adultery, are distinguished by using the word moicheia such as in Matthew 15:19 where Jesus specifies the sexual sin of adultery instead of using the more broad word porneia. From this, we see there is more to porneia than just pre-marital/adulterous sex. In Acts 15:20-29, the council at Jerusalem concludes the Gentiles must abstain from porneia. The Gentiles were not uncivilized. They had laws regarding adulterous affairs and other types of fornication. However, the new Gentile Christians were told to abstain from porneia indicating there were things the Jews saw as sexually immoral but the Gentiles did not. The verb form of porneia used is porneuo as found in Jude v7. Jude v6-8 describe angels having sex with human women (v6), sodomy (v7), and masturbation or coitus interruptus (v8). In this context we see three different distortions of the sexual act. Therefore, it is clear the Bible does distinguish different sexual sins.

There is also another word used in Scripture: pharmakeia or pharmakos, meaning “potion making” and “potion maker.” These words speak directly to the contraception issue at hand. Pharmakeia is often translated to “sorcerer” in the NT (Gal. 5:20, Rev. 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15). We think of sorcerers in terms of witchcraft, but these sorcerers were usually people who created potions of many sorts, including ones used to avoid conception. These potion makers also knew incantations and spells and used amulets and trinkets to cause infertility (Hodge 91). Scripture has a low view of these people as the potions and herbs they used were not made to preserve life like healing drugs (which are good) are, they are used to prevent it. Revelation 18 talks about Babylon the Great. It is said all the nations partake in her porneia (sexual immorality). However in 18:23, the apostle John switches and uses the word pharmakeia. In 21:8 and 22:15, the writer alternates between using the words porneia and pharmakeia indicating practicing one leads to the practice of the other (Hodge 92-93). The arguments from the Greek against sexual immorality, the distortion of the sexual act, and the use of these “potions” are condemned in the New Testament.

Those who argue the Bible does not speak explicitly to the issue of contraception are correct. The Bible does not explicitly speak to the issue. The Bible doesn’t do this because the Jews and the early church would have shared the same presuppositions about contraceptive measures. Whereas the Bible never explicitly condemns the practice, God’s attitude toward conception and children and family is made known and His people shared the same idea the family was important and central to society. The idea family is not the central sphere of society is a Postmodern idea that has infiltrated the church.

Now that it is proven the Bible does speak to this topic if not explicitly, then implicitly, we must discuss the idea of “Christian liberty.” The idea of this liberty comes from Romans 14-15, in which Paul states certain things a stronger brother in Christ can do in good conscience the weaker brother cannot. This includes drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. The point is the weaker brother should not be judged for these differences. Postmodern Christians, however, read moral implications into this passage in order to support their eisegesis.

First, Paul is not speaking in terms of moral absolutes. He is speaking in terms of Jew-Gentile relations. Many Jews had convictions about eating and drinking things deemed unclean. Paul says in 14:14, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” This is not talking about moral relativity, but aspects of the law Gentiles did not feel the need to follow but Jews did. Paul tells both parties not to condemn one another for these convictions, because Christ has set us free. This concept of freedom Paul talks about comes from Isaiah 61:1, in which Isaiah says the Lord has anointed Him to “proclaim liberty to the captives.” The word “liberty” in this context refers back to the concept of the Year of Jubilee, in which the people rested from their labor, captives were freed, and debts were dropped. The final Jubilee Year was inaugurated by Christ’s coming, in which He set His people free from and paid our debt for our sin. The freedom we have in Christ is not freedom to do as we please, but freedom from the Law of works and the bondage of sin. We are now under Grace and are not in bondage to the Law in working for our Salvation. It has already been accomplished. This is what Paul is talking about: freedom in Christ in dealing with Jew-Gentile relations, not freedom to accept situational ethics/moral relativity.

The Apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:16, to live “as free [men], and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” We are not called to use the freedom we have from sin to please ourselves, rather our lives must reflect God and what He has done for us. This does not mean we can never take pleasure in anything. In fact we should have joy because Christ has given us joy in salvation. However, there can be no argument made for Christian liberty in the contraception debate. God has not given us freedom to deny His Sovereignty and combat His design, both of which are grievous sins. These sexual morals are objective, not subjective, and no matter of “Christian liberty.” In order to make the argument, one would have to argue OT Laws echoed in the NT allow for such a practice, which has already been disproven. It is clear through multiple passages on children and family and the stories of many couples God had blessed with children and descendants all throughout Scripture there is simply no justification for this practice. Everything in Scripture relating to this points to the fact God does not approve of the practice of contraception.

Christians must avoid this sexual sin. I urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to pray about this important issue and take a second look at the thought process used to justify the practice of contraception. Examine the history, the motives, and the character of its advocates and the movement. The church has been involved in this secular practice far too long. It is time to stop! It is time to stop ignoring God’s design for marriage. It is time to stop using sex for selfish motives instead of using it to glorify God as He commands. It is time to stop participating in a practice that is not in any way Christian nor does it demonstrate God’s love for His children. Rather, it is time to think about sex as something sacred and good because God uses it to create covenant children, people with a purpose in His sovereign plan, and potentially, more followers of Christ who will grow up to do great things for the Kingdom of God. It is time to look not to our own interests but each of us to the interest of others (Phil. 2:4). This includes the interests of those unborn children who we may not know, but whom God knows intimately and is waiting to form together in the womb that they may glorify and enjoy Him forever.

Works Cited

BBC Ethics. “Moral Case Against Contraception,” BBC Ethics, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/against_l.shtml.

Calvin, Jean. A Little Book on the Christian Life. Edited and Translated by Aaron C. Denlinger and Burk Parsons. Reformation Trust Publishing, A Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2017.

Carlson, Allan, “History of Contraception in the Protestant Church.” Family Policy, 1999, rpt. in www.bound4life.com/history-of-contraception-in-the-protestant-church/.

Carlson, Allan, Godly Seed: American Evangelicals Confront Birth Control, 1873-1973., Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Carlson, Allan. Interview by E.J. Hutchinson. The Calvinist International, 29 May 2013, https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/05/29/carlson-interview/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2017.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on Job 10, https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Job/Job_010.cfm. Accessed 24 Jan. 2018.

Hodge, Bryan C., The Christian Case Against Contraception. Wipf and Stock publishers, 2010.

House, H. Wayne, “Should Christians Use Birth Control?” Christian Research Institute, 2009. www.equip.org/article/should-christians-use-birth-control/.

Pasquale, Samuel A., and Jennifer Cadoff. The Birth Control Book: a Complete Guide to Your Contraceptive Options. Ballantine Books, 1996.

Sproul, R.C. “God’s Sovereignty.”  Chosen By God Lecture series, Ligonier Ministries, 1986.