Sunday, January 2, 2011

Papal Condom Nation Pt. 2

   
   Well... as we saw in the previous post- Rome appeals to an exclusive “procreative principle” for becoming 'one-flesh'. 
   However,  Protestants have appealed to an inclusive “pleasure principle” within this 'one-flesh' relationship.  And indeed, Calvin’s voluminous appeals on  Sex, Marriage and Family- revolutionized Geneva and the planet.  A revolution we would do well to re-consider.
  Calvin clearly recognized that Eve was created for Adam's pleasure- in a "Garden of Pleasure".   And in his commentary on Genesis 2:18- Calvin strongly denounces Rome's "procreative principle":

And hence is refitted the error of some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and who restrict the word “good,” which had been lately mentioned, to the production of offspring... and that Adam was hitherto free from lust.

   Certainly a much more inclusive purpose from Calvin.
    
   And in Calvin's denouncement of aforementioned celibacy - Calvin also anticipates this current Popes appeal to a 'necessary evil':

The vulgar proverb, indeed, is, that she [woman] is a necessary evil; but the voice of God is rather to be heard, which declares that woman is given as a companion and an associate to the man, to assist him to live well.

   Does Calvin  appeal to Rome's "natural argument" here? Certainly not! 
Calvin repeatedly insists that the "natural" is "inverted", "degenerate" and "corrupt".  And Rome's "natural" argument is no exception.
   Rather Calvin here appeals to a static supernatural "voice" as his authority.  While this current Pope, in his commentary on Genesis- appeals to a 'naturally evolving and abrogating image' as his authority :

Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God's Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.

   But let's survey some more Protestant commentaryDoes prominant-Protestant Matthew Henry invoke a "procreative principle"?  Certainly not!:

(2.) It is not for the increase and continuance of his kind. God could have made a [complete] world of men at first, to replenish the earth, as he replenished heaven with a [complete] world of angels

   But Henry also denounces celibacy- and appeals to the Protestant  'pleasure principle':
  
(1.) It is not [solitude] for his comfort; for man is a sociable creature. It is a pleasure to him to exchange knowledge and affection with those of his own kind, to inform and to be informed, to love and to be beloved.
   
   And does Henry appeal to a "natural argument"?  Certainly  not!
Henry's commentary some six verses later (on Gen 2:24) insists:

1. See here how great the virtue of a divine ordinance is; the bonds of it are stronger even than those of nature. 

   But what of the foremost Protestant Council?  What of Westminster?  

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help [pleasure] of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness. 

   Do we see an exclusive "procreative principle" here?  Do we see marriage being ordained by Nature here?  Certainly not!  But rather marriage/sex being ordained by God himself.  For several reasons.

   But what other scripture do we have to support this 'pleasure principle'?   Well... how about Deuteronomy 24:5?  Is this not a concession for newlyweds to give 'pleasure' to one another?
  And how about Proverbs 5:19?  Does it speak of letting her  "womb" satisfy you at all times? 

   But primarily, how about Philippians 2:13?

for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort – for the sake of his good pleasure – is God.

   And why should it be otherwise?  Should it be merely for our good pleasure?
But Rome insists, 'Well, it is God's good pleasure that we procreate with our mates!'.

   Well...  sometimes, and sometimes not.

   Sometimes He does not bring forth either the 'desire nor the effort' for procreation.
Sometimes He merely brings forth the desire for recreation.  Procreation isn't always an option.

   And did not the Apostle Paul (as well as Calvin, Henry and Westminster) encourage the remarriage of Christian women for recreational purposes (1 Tim. 5)? Encourage remarriage of women well past "natural" child-conceiving age ("60")? 
Remarriage of women well past the range of Rome's "procreative principle"?   To pursue a much larger principle?  A loving principle?  A 'pleasure principle'?
   Or is our loving principal Himself bound by a "procreative principle"?  Is He always creating amongst the Trinity? Or is He sometimes 'merely' recreating?

   Indeed, for God's good pleasure.  Praise God!