Why Evangelicals Should Rethink Embrace of Contraception, Part Three

The body is much more than a tent. We are created in God’s image. And our body is a symbol revealing truths about God.

By Julie Roys Published on August 1, 2018

This is the third in a series on evangelicals and contraception. Read parts one and two.

“My parents had five kids and I was always embarrassed about it. All my friends came from families with 10 to 12 kids. They were always asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your mom and dad? Don’t they like each other?’”

That comment cracked up the entire newsroom at Fox 32 News Chicago where I used to work. It came from a reporter who grew up in a staunchly Catholic, Chicago neighborhood. Like most of my colleagues, I intended to have two, maybe three kids. And like them, I thought the Catholic view of sex and contraception was ridiculous.

That was about 25 years ago.

Since then, I’ve discovered Theology of the Body (TOB) — Pope John Paul II’s biblical analysis of what it means to be human. This radically transformed my view of the body, human sexuality — and in turn, birth control. And now, I don’t think the Catholic view is ridiculous. I think it’s biblical. And though I’m not dogmatic about it, I, like a growing number of evangelicals, no longer feel comfortable with contraception.

A New Paradigm

TOB presents a very different view of the body than the one I was taught. I was taught the body is in effect a tent for the soul. And though I believed marriage had spiritual significance, I never considered that sex might.

But John Paul taught that the body is much more than a tent. We are created in God’s image. And our body is a symbol revealing truths about God. As popular Catholic theologian, Christopher West, put it: “(T)he body … is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden since time immemorial in God, and thus to be a sign of it.”

First, the body reveals God’s Trinitarian nature — how multiple persons can exist as one essence. This is profoundly reflected when husband and wife become “one flesh” as described in Genesis 2:24.

When I first encountered this idea, I was skeptical. I was older than 40 at the time. And in all my years in the church, I had never heard anyone articulate this idea.

For too long, evangelicals have embraced contraception without truly thinking of its implications. We claim to be biblical. But we’re often just thinking like the world. That needs to change.

Yet when I checked with a theology professor at the Moody Bible Institute where I used to work, he said this was accepted Trinitarian theology. Similarly, when Dr. John Jefferson Davis appeared on my radio show, he affirmed this understanding, as well. Davis is a leading evangelical ethicist, so his opinion carried a lot of weight.

But Trinitarian life and love isn’t the only mystery the one-flesh union reveals. John Paul also taught that it reveals the mystery of Christ’s relationship with the church.

The idea that sexual intimacy would reflect our relationship with Christ seemed somewhat scandalous to me. Yet, that’s precisely what Ephesians 5:31-32 says: “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church.”

TOB elevated the human body and sexuality to a whole new level for me. I realized the body is not merely a “tent”; it is a symbol with deep, spiritual meaning. And I realized that birth control not only prevents conception. It also alters a profoundly spiritual symbol.

Sex, Symbol, & Sterilization

In his 1966 article credited with shifting evangelical opinion on birth control, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery argued that Catholics view sex merely as a means of having children. But as TOB makes abundantly clear, that’s not so, though Montgomery can’t be faulted for not knowing that. His article predated TOB by 15-20 years.

Interestingly though, Montgomery’s view of marriage is actually quite similar to John Paul’s. Both see the marriage analogy in Ephesians 5 as the “focal center of scriptural teachings on marriage.” But for Montgomery, the analogy justifies contraception. For John Paul, it makes it unthinkable.

Montgomery argued that “Christ’s relation with His church is a love relation.” So if a couple is using birth control to “achieve a better human relationship,” it’s legitimate.

Montgomery also argued that God’s command in Genesis 1:28 to “subdue the earth” gives people license to control their fertility. He added that it’s “bizarre” that Catholics teach that man can control plants and animals, “yet cannot without sin control his own numbers.”

However, John Paul argued that contraception profoundly distorts the marriage analogy. Christopher West explains:

Christ did not sterilize His love. When we sterilize our love, we are changing what is happening in the sexual act itself to the point that we are no longer imaging Christ’s love for the church. We are no longer imaging the Trinity. In fact, it becomes a counter-image … of Christ and the church.

West’s point is well-made. Clearly, Christ’s union with the Church is one that’s intended to be fruitful — to make disciples. So, too, is the Trinitarian union. It is always life-giving and never sterile.

If we accept the modern evangelical interpretation, we must accept this symbolic distortion. Similarly, we must accept that the marriage analogy negates, or trumps, God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” We also must accept that subduing the earth can mean contracepting. This, despite the fact that God’s command to “be fruitful” directly precedes His command to “subdue the earth.”

But if we accept John Paul’s interpretation, we embrace a consistent message from Genesis to Revelation. Marriage is meant to be a joyful, fruitful expression of God’s life and love into which we, as His bride, are called to participate. There is no contradiction. There is only a powerful, compelling, and counter-cultural message of divine love.

Must Couples Have as Many Children as They Possibly Can?

Rejecting contraception does not mean couples must have as many children as possible. There are valid reasons to avoid pregnancy. And there is a way to do that without violating the spiritual significance of marital intimacy. It’s called natural family planning (NFP).

NFP works with our God-given body, rather than against it. It’s also 99-percent effective when used properly. Most importantly, it doesn’t distort the symbol of marital intimacy. It simply submits sex and fertility to the direction of a married couple.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

There’s much more that could be written on this matter. I didn’t intend this series to provide the definitive answer on contraception, but simply to spur thoughtful, biblical reflection.

For too long, evangelicals have embraced contraception without truly thinking of its implications. We claim to be biblical. But we’re often just thinking like the world. That needs to change. We should not dismiss the theology embraced by Christians from the beginning just because Catholics have retained it. Perhaps it’s time we returned to it.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Once again, a big Amen!

  • gladys1071

    Contraception is a personal decision that should be decided between married couple.

    The author says she has re-thinked contraception, i think that is fine for her to do that, but this should not be mandated that all married couples need to do the same.

    For some married couples contraception or sterilization is the right decision for them.

  • Keith

    The author dives straight to the gutter in this series of articles by assuming that the only reason people of faith would go in this direction is because they are cowards or giving into social norms. It is especially egregious when most of her argument is “it’s always been this way.” In this third article, we finally get into something else, but it is still just opinions of well known people. For making an argument supposedly Biblical, there is virtually no actual reference of any substance to the Bible. I’m still completely in the dark on why natural family planning is great but using condoms makes a mockery of God.

    • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

      Ephesians 5 is not in your bible? Genesis 2 is not in your bible? You may not agree with her interpretation of these texts, but you cannot claim she didn’t use the bible. And BTW, John Paul’s Theology of the Body is a profound reflection on biblical texts. He’s not just making stuff up here.

      • Keith

        I said , “For making an argument supposedly Biblical, there is virtually no actual reference of any substance to the Bible.” So yeah, I think her use of those two passages from the Bible don’t have much substance for this argument. And BTW, John Paul’s thing may be profound, never said it wasn’t, but it is still just the opinion of a well known person like I said. If I were going to make an argument that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, it would be a pretty pathetic attempt if my evidence was people believed that for a long time and Billy Graham and some other church leaders thought so.

        • James Blazsik

          Pope St. John Paul is more than a well known person. As Pope he has teaching authority that affects more than 1.3 billion Catholics.

      • Ben Reese

        So I’m a bit lost with Keith here – is using condoms (or other barriers) considered the same as hormonal contraception? Or the same as NFP?

      • Andrew Mason

        Roys spent more than 1,100 words on this part alone, yet only managed to refer to 2 verses in Genesis, and hangs her entire thesis on one cryptic passage in Ephesians. It is less an issue of interpretation and more a matter of substance. She offers next to no Scriptural support for her position, instead relying on selected ‘expert commentary’ and her discussion of that commentary. That technique might be fine for a regressiveliberal piece but not as an argument seeking to assert a Biblical position.

  • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

    “I didn’t intend this series to provide the definitive answer on contraception, but simply to spur thoughtful, biblical reflection.” I hope you succeed Ms. Roys! We need more such reflection!

  • Here I Am

    Thank you for bringing up these issues. I was also transformed by TOB after reading it a few years ago. If more people embraced a healthy, biblical understanding of sexuality and the physical body, what a great difference it could make in the world!

  • Trilemma

    When a farmer plants a seed in the ground, he is actually planting the fertilized egg of a plant. All that seed needs is an environment where it can get the necessary nutrients to grow. The writers of the Bible viewed human reproduction the same way. A man planted a seed in a woman whose body simply provided the necessary nutrients and environment to grow. Therefore, they would view a man’s spilled seed as the death of a human life in the same way we would view the death of an embryo as the death of a human life. That means the Bible would give a wrong view of contraception.

    • Bryan

      Your last sentence seems to be a leap of logic. “[D]eath of embryo… death of human life” follows with your train of thought. Then you jump to it’s the wrong view. Why is it wrong?
      Of course this may be my sleep deprived brain missing something.

      • Trilemma

        The writers of the Bible would view condom use as killing a human life which we know today is a wrong view.

        • Ken Abbott

          They would? Do you have chapter and verse to support that contention? And please don’t cite Genesis 38; contraception per se was not the reason for Onan’s judgment.

    • Ken Abbott

      I love the way you put lines of thinking into the minds of the biblical authors and make pronouncements thereupon. What basis supports your claim to represent their thoughts with accuracy?

      • Trilemma

        The word used for a plant embryo is the same word used for a man’s emission. In Hebrews 7:19, Levi is said to be in Abraham’s body.

        • Ken Abbott

          My earlier post has disappeared, likely moderated out because of my use of technical medical terms for a certain bodily fluid. I will point out as I did in my previous effort that the current terms we use are derived from Latin and Greek words meaning “seed,” so we use the same speech conventions employed by the biblical writers.

          • Trilemma

            I don’t think “seed” is being used today exactly the same way it was used by the writers of the Bible. Today, when we talk about a plant seed, we’re talking about a fertilized plant egg. When we talk about a man’s seed, we’re talking figuratively because we know his “seed” is really just male gametes. The writers of the Bible knew nothing about male and female gametes. Human eggs were not discovered until the eighteenth century.

          • Ken Abbott

            I agree that the language employed today is more metaphorical, but the point was speech conventions. Just as we still speak of “sunrise” and “sunset” despite our knowledge of heliocentricity, our language retains its roots in earlier concepts. People are allowed to speak phenomenologically. And folks in ancient times still recognized it took a coupling of a man and a woman to produce a child. Give them some credit for common sense.

  • Andrew Mason

    While this part states that it didn’t intend to provide a definitive answer on contraception but simply to spur thoughtful Biblical reflection it fails to achieve that. As I noted in my comment in Part 2, Roys has focused on commentary not what Scripture teaches. There are a great many Scriptural passages that could be considered, and a great many real world scenarios that could be looked at, but Roys fails to do either. Instead it is simply more of the same largely irrelevant commentary.

    This piece references TotB, a series of 129 lectures by Pope John Paul II between 1979 and 1984, though it appears that contraception was only addressed in the 114th lecture. Exactly what TotB teaches, let alone what it is founded on, isn’t addressed in this piece. Instead we’re simply told that evangelicals are taught the body is a tent whereas Catholicism teaches that the body is a symbol with deep spiritual meaning. What then of 1 Corinthians 6:19 which states that the body is a temple for the Holy Spirit? Ephesians 5:31-32 is the only passage referenced as support for the notion of the body as a symbol, and that is a spectacularly cryptic passage, and even commentaries do not make it clear.

    Roys argues Montgomery and John Paul actually share similar views, they merely disagree on the matter of contraception. She insists that the act of sex is akin to a sacrament, that husband cleaving to wife is meant to symbolise the union of Christ and Church, and that as Christ’s love is not sterile, so to must marriage not be sterile, then argues for an exception, but more about that later. If sex is a sacrament, what was it prior to Christ? Roys argues that Christ’s union with the Church is intended to be fruitful – to make disciples, but isn’t that conflating elements? Christ’s relationship with the Church is given in metaphorical passages, but the command to make disciples is literal. To conflate the two matters as an argument for childbearing appears to be poor theology at best. Roys argues that if we accept the modern evangelical interpretation we must distort the symbol, and yet this is predicated on the notion that we have accepted the body as a symbol. She also insists that the command to be fruitful is ignored by the modern evangelical position. While she is correct that English versions of Scripture have God’s command to be fruitful prior to the command to subdue the Earth, does the Hebrew? From what I can see – and I’m no Hebrew scholar so working with a concordance, subduing the Earth precedes God’s command to be fruitful, as well as the command to have dominion over all the Earth. This also assumes that the order of the commands is critical. Is it more critical to respect your parents than not commit murder? Or are both equally important? Roys goes on to contend that John Paul’s interpretation is necessary for a consistent Genesis to Revelation message – that marriage is meant to be a joyful, fruitful expression of God’s life and love into which we, as His bride, are called to participate. And yet despite Roys’ claim, there is an inherent contradiction. If we are commanded to be fruitful, then is it not sin to fail to marry, or to marry a barren woman? There are so many matter which she fails to address.

    Having insisted that contraception is wrong, that it is a distortion of the symbol, Roys then insists that contraception is permissible within marriage, but only so long as it is the approved form of contraceptive – specifically a technique that identifies when a woman will be sterile and thus available for child free sex. How is using a tool or drug any different to using a technique with the same goal? And what of those who use contraceptives primarily for purposes other than birth control?

    I had high hopes for this piece, that despite arguing a position I personally disagree with, it might actually offer points for consideration and debate. Sadly it has completely failed in this regards.

  • erin

    As a Catholic sister in Christ, I am deeply grateful for and impressed by your articles. To recognize the profound Christian and biblical meaning of sex and the body is no small hurdle for most Protestants, and Catholics too for that matter – too much selflessness is at stake. Submitting our fertility to God is too scary.
    I would only add, as I’m not certain I remember seeing it in any of the articles, that hormonal birth control can also act as an abortifacient, destroying a human embryo’s necessary environment and thus ending the life of a conceived child. And we can never know exactly when this is or is not happening with any hormonal birth control option. This fact alone convinced me, as claiming to be pro-life, that contraception was a great evil.

  • It seems to me that a better argument against contraception can be made by an appeal to greed and self indulgence (wanted to keep things for yourself, and not share with the new person) than the arguments made from TOB – theology of the Body.
    TOB arguments all appear to miss the mark, or make no sense. For example, there’s an appeal to the parallel to the relationship with Christ as revealed in Ep 5 – but how does that relate to contraception in light of Matt 22:30: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” No marriage implies no sex which means no need of contraception. The Ep 5 passage would then be referring to a union with Christ which has no parallel in marriage.

    But my bigger question is why, once you’ve decided that contraception is wrong, is Natural Family Planning (which sounds like what used to be called the “rhythm method”) Okay? Why is one method of contraception okay and another is not okay? They’re both achieving the same purpose. This is like the distinction the Amish make which I also don’t understand. Why is it okay to use some tools, but not other tools? Why is a horse powered wagon okay, but an engine powered wagon is not okay? In this case, Why is it okay to consciously prevent pregnancy by avoiding sex when the woman is fertile, but it’s not okay to consciously avoid pregnancy by introducing some sort of barrier during sex? One could argue that the avoidance of sex in the NFP method is itself a barrier and thus should not be condoned.

    I can understand why contraception would be frowned upon based on the command to “be fruitful and multiple”; and it also makes sense to me that those who fear large families are really fearing that God will not provide for such a large family, and thus it gets back to faith in God and the desire (for some level of) self indulgence with the resources you have. But the arguments made from TOB – with an exception for Natural Family Planning – make no sense to me as an argument against contraception.

    • James Blazsik

      Lets face it Duane – you’ve never read Theology of the Body. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • James Blazsik

    Protestantism is the first step to the dissolution of Christianity. The Catholic Church has been against contraception from the very beginning. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15). In other words, it is the Church that properly interprets Scripture
    Evangelicals struggle with questions like this because of Sola Scriptura – in the end you can make Scripture say what you want it to say – and say it is Scriptural.
    Catholics have 2,000 years of teaching – Evangelicals have far less.
    This includes contraception.

    • 2000 of popes deciding what the scripture means because “the church” doesn’t think you’re smart enough to do it on your own. The current pope is flat wrong on a good number of things including evolution and the big bang. The Church is not “the pillar and ground of truth,” that would be Jesus Christ – John 14.6 – whom we should all be following – and hanging on his every word – not the words of some pope. (Or any evangelical leader for that matter.)

      • James Blazsik

        The Catholic Church teaching consists the teaching of Popes, but much more. The Church fathers, Doctors of the Church, and the saints.
        The Bible says in 1Tim. 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Of course Jesus is the truth – and the Church is His Body
        Jesus left an organized Church (Matthew 16:17-19) with binding and loosing authority. Scripture is of no private interpretation.

        • How typically Catholic in your perspective. Do you not realize the church that is referenced in 1 Tim 3:15 is the church universal? Not the Catholic church. Do you not realize protestants also appreciate the teachings of the church fathers? And do you not realize that according to scriptures like Eph 1.1 all who are faithful to Christ are saints? Assuming you are faithful, that makes you a saint, as it does me and every other faithful Christian. Whose teaching then will you follow? The Protestant fathers of the church universal? The Protestant saints? Of course not. As you mentioned previously, you’re not interested in “sola scriptura.” You’re just interested in Catholic tradition and teaching, not working through the issue yourself.

          The problem with relying on the (Catholic) church for your theology is – you have no answers the (Catholic) church doesn’t give you. I notice you ignored my larger objection: If you determine that contraception is wrong, why then is it okay – according to your catholic teaching – to use Natural Family Planning? It’s still contraception. Give me a reason – apart from the teaching of Catholic tradition, and the opinions of popes and (Catholic) saints – why that method of contraception (NFP) is okay when others are not?

          • James Blazsik

            How typically Protestant in you perspective. When Paul wrote this there was only one Church, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church founded at the Last Supper.
            Protestants and particularly Evangelicals do not know the Church Fathers.
            Do you believe Jesus in instituting the Eucharist? Jesus said to eat His Body and Blood. Jesus said that bread and wine is His Body and Blood. The Church Fathers affirm this.

          • It’s a bit arrogant of you to claim you know what Evangelicals know (and don’t know) about the Church Fathers.

            Still pushing Catholic doctrine and avoiding the main question I see. I’m not here re-debate the reasons for the reformation. (Which in my mind are wholly justified.)

            I simply want a reasoned, preferably scriptural answer to the question. Shall I conclude you simply have no answer to the question? To remind you the question is, since Catholics have determined contraception is wrong, how do you justify using NFP (Natural Family Planning) which is contraception? Why is it alone okay to use when all other methods of contraception are wrong?

            I understand you want to promote the Catholic church and doctrine. – I got that. Now please try to answer the question. Or I will be left to conclude that you, like many Catholics, simply (and though I dislike using the word, I will here since it fits) blindly follow the teachings of the (Catholic) church and are either unable or unwilling to think through the issues yourself.

          • James Blazsik

            I was an evangelical for more than 20 years. I attended various Evangelical churches and attended a Pentecostal college. I became a Methodist youth pastor. In my journey I got into Calvinism. I was ordained an Anglican priest. In other words, I have ample experience to comment.
            I read a biography on Martin Luther given to me by a Lutheran minister. That led me to the Catholic Church.
            You made the comment I was arrogant that Evangelicals didn’t know the Church Fathers. I know that by experience. By the way, the Church Fathers were Catholic!
            Thank you for agreeing with me that 1 Timothy 3:15 is valid for the universal church. You don’t know that’s a big admission.
            That’s the admission of Church teaching authority in 1Tim 3:15. There are certain subjects in life that are not covered in Scripture so you use Scripture and reason. The Church relies on 2,000 years of teaching tradition
            1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thes 2:15 and 2 Thes.3:6 specifically states that Paul established tradition that he expected to be obeyed.
            The Church has always stood against contraception. The first Protestant church to change that was the Episcopal Church in 1930. Other Protestant churches followed suit.
            The Church uses Scripture and natural law tn explaining that the marital act must be always open for life.
            Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968 provided clear teaching on marital love and stood against contraception. He said that contraception would objectify woman and increase immorality. He was right.
            This landmark stand in the 1960’s cause an earthquake in the Catholic Church.

          • Three times I have asked for a reason why, if contraception is wrong, Natural Family Planning Contraception is okay. Every time you respond with the authority of the Catholic church. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I don’t accept the authority of the catholic church or the pope. I accept the authority of scripture. None of the scriptures you cite speak to why NFP is an Okay contraceptive, while all others are not.
            You appear to have no answer to my question, so I must conclude the only reason you accept NFP as an okay contraceptive is because Pope Paul VI and whatever other Pope or Catholic doctrine you want to cite tells you it’s okay. That’s great for you who accept the authority of the pope, and the Catholic church.
            For those of us who don’t, you’re going to have to come up with a better reason than “the pope says so” Or the “the Catholic church says so” or “Our holy sainted fathers of the past said so.” As far as I can tell this is just Catholic hypocrisy backed by “the pope said so”, thus it’s okay.
            Can you tell me why this is not hypocrisy? (Other than the pope says so, of course.)

          • James Blazsik

            I’ve given you 2,000 years of Church teaching. The Church Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant has stood against contraception, Until 1930 when the Protestant Episcopal church changed its mind.
            I told you that the Church Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant believe that marital love should be open to life.
            With Sola Scriptura anyone can interpret Scripture with bias. The Trinity, deity of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection, and the Bible as the word of God ts Catholic teaching.In other words, you believe Catholic Teaching. If you don’t believe it you are considered a heretic.
            How do you determine the Trinity without the Church formulating it?
            Natural Family Planning is not contraception The reason is that you are not using artificial means. You are still open to life. Duh.
            What church do you attended?

          • To be clear, my problem is not with the Catholic decree that contraception is wrong (neither am I saying it’s correct – just that I can see how you get there). My problem is with the current teaching of how to implement it – applying it only to some contraceptives. Back to that in a moment.

            I disagree that with “sola scriptura” you can interpret the faith any way you want. Multiple scriptures teach the same doctrines so they re-enforce each other and clarify the meaning. Many church fathers (not just catholic ones) and scholars have arrived at the same fundamentals of the faith via sola scriptura. In this, you’re flat wrong – that you can interpret scripture any way you want. You bring up the Trinity. Well then the trinity for example, can clearly be seen in multiple scriptures, for example: Isaiah 48.16 or Matt 3.16-17. No need of church fathers, Catholic formulations or papal decrees. Any doctrine of great significance is like that – having multiple scriptures to re-enforce and clarify it. And I don’t buy the great truths of the faith are Catholic teachings – but that’s another discussion.

            Regarding NFP – since when did “using artificial means” becoming the defining property of contraception? Another artificial Catholic doctrine, apparently. Many methods of contraception still leave you “Open to life.” For example: Condoms: take it off, you’re open to life. Same with just about all methods that are not permanent surgical body alterations like vasectomies or tube tying. You merely stop using the contraceptive, and you’re once again “open to life.” So being “open to life” is not unique to NFP.

            Teaching one thing and doing another is hypocrisy. As near as I can see, there’s a hypocrisy going on with contraception in the Catholic church. You Catholics claim contraception is wrong, but then you say it’s okay to use NFP contraception. So we are to believe that contraception – the pre-meditated act of preventing child conception (for that’s what contraception is – including NFP) – is okay as long you use “natural methods”? That’s your position?

            Let me ask you this: Is murder okay if I use natural methods to do it? Is it okay to murder naturally by using only my God given my hands? Is it only wrong if I use a gun or a knife or other weapon to kill? If murder is wrong regardless of the method, why is contraception not wrong regardless of the method?

            I suspect we have far more in common with regard to theology than either of us care to see or acknowledge at the moment. I think our biggest difference is I have no qualms about calling out the Catholic church – or anyone else – when they’re clearing wrong – particularly when it comes to the Christian faith. But if, because I think the Catholic position on Contraception is hypocrisy, that makes me a heretic, then so be it. Like Martin Luther “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
            (Not that I fear Catholic sanctions (Matt 10.28), but I mean to point out the steadfastness of my conviction.)

          • James Blazsik

            Sola Scriptura is impossible. There is always a teaching tradition.
            Calvin and Wesley are fundamentally opposed to each other and yet claim they are Biblical. How can that be?
            Your explanation of the Trinity is faulty in that you don’t know your Church history. The early Church battled multiple heresies against the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Church councils formulated the essence of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon are examples of Councils that formulated the theology to battle heresy.
            There were Church Councils that gave us the canon of Scripture. (which included the (deuteros).
            Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus were early Church Fathers who battled heresy.
            The theology of the Trinity, deity of Christ, atoning death of Christ, resurrection and Scripture are Catholic whether you want to accept it or not. I think that’s the issue with Protestants – they pick and choose, and simply believe things that can be against reality.
            Martin Luther became a madman. He condoned the slaughter of a 100,000 peasants. Read “The Jews and their Lies” Luther commanded the burning down of Synagogues and the theft and destruction of Jewish property.
            Let Natural Family Planning go. I already answered you.

          • I just gave you an example of sola scriptura – and you rejected it. Who then is rejecting reality?

            Let’s face it James, The Catholic teaching on Natural Family Planning is hypocrisy, and with all your appeals to church history, tradition, teaching and papal decrees, you can’t explain why it isn’t hypocrisy. But like a good Catholic, you’re willing to drink the Catholic Kool-aid. That’s your choice. But as long as you avoid the question of why NFP isn’t hypocrisy, don’t expect me to drink the Kool-aid.

          • James Blazsik

            Did you read, “The Jews and Their Lies”?
            What church do you attend?

Greater Purpose
Paula White-Cain
More from The Stream
Connect with Us