Bad Logic on Birth Control
by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., January 27, 2003
Recently, I learned of a very misguided cleric, determined to caricaturize home educators and biblical principles of patriarchy, argue that if the Bible does not expressly forbid something, it is therefore allowed. He was trying to make the case for birth control. He was also implying that those Christians who oppose birth control are legalists. In my view, this sort of reasoning is specious and deeply flawed.
For now let’s set aside the fact that the vast majority of times that modern Christians shout “legalist, legalist” it is because (a) their definition of legalist is “anyone who does not embrace my personal standards of liberty:” (b) the issue so touches a nerve that they feel they have to either justify their own behavior or attack the advocates of the alternative position: (c) they know that an accusation of ‘legalist’ is the tactical equivalent of Jesse Jackson labeling someone a “racist,” — i.e. once the accusation is made, facts no longer matter; or (d) they are simply too lazy, too nervous of the fallout, or too incapable of making an exegetical case for their own position without the use of ad hominums.
But for now, let’s put aside the issue of “what is a legalist?”
Even more dangerous than tactical name-calling, is the denigration of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. In my view, there are two fundamental problems with the argument that if “something is not expressly forbidden it is allowed.” First, this argument is built upon a system of unbiblical proof-texting. Second, this form of reasoning is contrary to the doctrine of the “sufficiency of Scripture.” finally, it is dishonest and hypocritical to criticize others for a standard that the critic himself is unwilling to live by. To be specific, I have never met a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ (parent or preacher) who really lives, teaches or trains his or her children based on the premise that if something is not expressly stated in Scripture, it is therefore allowed. As I will explain below, most parents and preachers object to the attendance of the children in X-rated theaters, notwithstanding the absence of a specific proof-text on X rated theaters in the Bible.
The Christian should begin with the presupposition that the Bible contains all that is necessary for faith and practice. Within the pages of God’s sufficient revelation are the necessary principles, precepts and patterns for believers to make wise decisions on any matter of Christian ethics. Those who argue that the Bible is silent on ethical issues like birth control are merely substituting their own private ethical judgment for God’s Word. Although I would disagree with his exegesis, I would soundly respect the preacher who assumed the sufficiency of Scripture on the issue of birth control, but made his case in favor of Birth control from the Bible alone — not arguments from silence or claims of biblical neutrality. No Bible-believing Christian should respect or tolerate the argument that God has left us without a revelation to sufficiently make ethical decisions.
The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture as understood by the great Reformers and authors of our historic confessions, means that the Bible does address (either explicitly or principally) the ethical issues necessary to reach a definitive conclusion on the legitimacy of all ethical issues, including deliberate child prevention. The alternative to the sufficiency of Scripture is the dangerous practice of proof-texting. (i.e. — I will only look to the Bible as a guide on the issue of birth control if you can find me a specific passage that addresses birth control.) To argue that one needs a proof text forbidding an act, else it is valid, is not only bad theology, it is pure foolishness. The Bible does not say “don’t buy girlie magazines,” but it certainly gives the believer enough information that under most normative circumstances of which we might conceive, the purpose of such a purchase is unwise and God-dishonoring. Similarly, notwithstanding the fact that marijuana, heroine, and similar hallucinogens may nowhere be mentioned in the Bible by name or category, God’s Word is replete with necessary principles whereby the Christian can conclude that the use of such drugs for recreational narcotic use is absolutely unacceptable.
Opponents of the historic doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture and advocates of prooftexting are ultimately left without a legitimate moral compass on matters of ethics. It is not that they have no ethical guide, it is simply that they have transferred authority form God’s revelation to their own imaginations. Because they assume the silence of Scripture, they insert the authority of their own mind. Often, they become libertines, at which point their best arguments are: “I can not personally find a text in the Scripture on the subject of birth control, therefore anyone who opposes the Pill is a legalist.” At this point, their arguments are no longer driven by theology, but by their own personal morality.
God’s Word is sufficient. Let us study it carefully to seek his will, especially on issues like child birth where he is so thorough, so emphatic, and so clear as to His vision for man.