Biblical mandate to have children?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by London 1689, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. London 1689

    London 1689
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is is right for a Christian couple to choose not to have children or is there a biblical mandate for them to have children?
    I have heard some say that when in the bible Adam and Noah are told to, "Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth," that applies to all Christians and we have no right ro disobey it.
     
  2. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    You are going to get as many opinions on this as there are quills on a porcupine and some are going to sting just as bad.

    Here's my opinion. Whether or not a Christian couple has children or not is between the Godly husband, the Godly wife, and Almighty God.
     
  3. Mr.M

    Mr.M
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well you may have heard it but of course it is quite erroneous. The commands were to these men, they were responsible for initiating or re-initiating the human population for the eventual birth of Christ into the human race. It was to keep the human race sustained. There is no threat of such failure now and certainly the second Adam come.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    That about wraps it up!
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The earth is pretty well repopulated and subdued.

    I agree with that dang uppity woman a few posts up.
     
  6. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    That would be the biblical mandate!
     
  7. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10

    MP! We have had this discussion before!

    CAPITALIZE Dang Uppity Woman! Puhleaze Man!
     
  8. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't want to get our threads crossed, but as we are discussing a similar topic I thought I might address this one. You had said that the idea being relayed in 1Tim 2 was that the woman not 'bearing children' was outside the will of God. Would that not imply that bearing children was the will of God for women?
     
  9. Joe

    Joe
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    No More Rug Rats!!!! :D
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh oh, I've gone and done it now!

    Yes ma'am, Miss Bitsy.
     
  11. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalms 127:3 Lo, children are a heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
     
  12. Mr.M

    Mr.M
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. The reference to being saved in childbearing was not to communicate that all women are now expect to bear children. Remember the context was a woman's role. The reference to childbearing was to make EMPHASIS on the unique role of women and using that reference makes clear to whom he is talking. It could be said this say..."she shall be preserved from the pitfalls of abandoning her divine role if she continue in that role" (again as illustrated by Eve being referenced who was deceived when she abandoned her subordination to her husband and heeded the instruction of another) and the use of childbearing somewhat a consummation of the scope of a woman's role per divine design.
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about this one?

    1 Timothy 5:14
    14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
     
  14. Joe

    Joe
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0

    You all will get it straighted out :)


    Joe
     
    #14 Joe, Aug 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2007
  15. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    James, its very hard to agree with you with that goofy look on your face, but on this point I believe we agree. :laugh:
     
  16. Mr.M

    Mr.M
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, a reference to the quintessential divine design for a woman. But more importantly Paul is addressing young widows. This is not suddenly a new doctrine being introduced demanding all "younger women" have to marry and bear children. Nor is it a requirement that a young widow must always automatically remarry. Bu Paul is instructing the younger women to do so so that they enter into the protective guard of divine design. However, the Bible is quite clear and accepting of the fact that not all women who love the Lord and serve the Lord MUST marry and bear children.

    Look in verses at the context of the verse:

    First Paul says in verse 11 that "when they have begun to was wanton against Christ, they will marry" and then in verse 14 he says "I will therefore that the younger women marry". Seeming contradictions, but it is not the case.

    The issue is not marriage per se for younger widows called younger women here but protection. Paul talks about after becoming a widow they learn to be idle and become gossips and so on. Their purpose and the default protection of functioning as a wife and mother have been removed. All of the subordination, duties and beneficiary protection of that state are removed. And Paul recognizes the tendency of immaturity and impetuousness of young adulthood, hence his statement that they marry and bear children. As well, marriage provides a default guard from trouble makers who wish to conjure up rumors that she "must be doing this or that after all she is so young" and so on.

    But Paul is not introducing a command for all young widows without the acknowledgment of qualifications of exceptions. This is a social prescription, not a Spiritual or Ecclesiastical one. Here the exceptions to this are understood by reasonable minds. Yes, there are some younger widows who can function with self-restraint, preoccupation with Christ and without controversial lifestyles. But Paul obviously knows that this is the exception and deals with the rule.
     
  17. booklady

    booklady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is a Biblical mandate for all Christian couples to have children, then why are some Christian couples not physically able to have children? Some of you are pulling these verses out of context to make it sound as though it is a sin to not have children. How insulting and hurtful to couples who aren't able to, or choose not to have children!
     
  18. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe if it were a Biblical mandate for all married couples to have children, then God would not have closed the womb of some in the days before Christ.

    Hannah for example:

    But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. (1 Samuel 1:5)

    Of course, we do know the Lord later opened the womb.

    Sarah
    Rachel

    Others?
     
    #18 standingfirminChrist, Aug 26, 2007
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2007
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God closes the womb, that is His doing, not the choice of a couple.
     
  20. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, yes, but I expect I am seeing things from a different perspective than you are and that threads on this subject rarely address.

    Without medical intervention, a means that God has apparently chosen to use, there would actually be a lot less children in many families.
    We have the 3 we had because I had medical treatments. Without those medical treatments, conception, other than God healing directly, would have been impossible.
    (I do not imply that every treatment or medicine is neutral or advisable. I would not have used in vitro fertilization, for example.)

    But there are many treatable conditions in both male and female. And without that treatment conception is impossible humanly.

    So if people should take such a hands-off approach to conception, does that go in the reverse direction too? No treatments whatsoever to make conception possible? Or do you just assume that hands-off only applies to restricting conception but enhancing its likelihood is OK?
     

Share This Page

Loading...