A Refutation of the Christian Case against Contraception: Part 3

 We now arrive at Bryan Hodge's third argument against the morality of contraception: one supposedly drawn from systematic theology. One might wonder how this argument is meant to differ from the Scriptural one we have already observed the failure of given that Hodge's systematic theology is drawn entirely from the Bible. It appears that this particular rhetorical strategy is meant to draw together multiple strands of Biblical teaching as opposed to focusing on the implications of specific passages alone. In any case, it remains my view here as before that Hodge completely fails to defend the notion that it is strictly immoral to avoid childbearing in any capacity. I will review the texts and arguments he employs and show that nothing here may present any significant challenge to the proponent of contraception.

A Refutation of the Christian Case against Contraception: Part 2

In my previous post, I refuted the first argument set forth by Bryan Hodge against the moral acceptability of contraceptive use: the argument from the historic consensus of the church. I argued that the Church Fathers made mistakes in their reasoning and that their authority is not sufficient to justify moral or doctrinal conclusions without Scriptural support (this is the principle of sola Scriptura). In this post, I will critique Hodge's argument against contraception from the Scriptures themselves. Again, the reader is encouraged to read Hodge's work for themselves and study my responses to each of his points. I will begin with the section of the chapter on the Old Testament and continue on to the New Testament.

A Refutation of the Christian Case against Contraception: Part 1

Bryan Hodge has sought to make a case against contraceptive practices from an evangelical Christian standpoint. He marshalls four arguments to make his point: one from patristic consensus, one from Scripture, one from systematics, and one from practical reason and ethics. I wish to show here that while the considerations he considers raise important questions and challenges for Christians (particularly for those who use contraceptives or contraceptive practices) none of the arguments entail that contraception is inherently immoral and that his conclusions are inordinate and incorrect. I intend to provide a sustained defense of the notion that Christians can sincerely, worshipfully, and in good conscience utilize contraception and contraceptive practices (on the assumption that such things do not involve abortion in any way). My refutation will be divided into parts, corresponding to each of Hodge's arguments. I shall be referencing Hodge's work frequently throughout my discourse here, and the reader is recommended to read Hodge's book alongside my comments and criticisms of it. An online preview of the content this Part critiques can be perused here.

Cur Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit

• Nothingness is the state of total absence of being.

• Only things which in some sense have being can be ascribed a nature, potentiality, and actuality. (Things like humans have being in a "real" sense while things like unicorns may be said to have being in a "virtual" sense.)

• So nothingness does not have a nature, potentiality, or actuality.

• But to posit something coming from nothing is to ascribe a nature and potentiality to nothingness.

• So something cannot come from nothing.

A Meditation on Dread

Human beings are naturally predisposed toward feeling the sensation of fear in certain circumstances. When someone points a gun at me and demands my wallet, my body releases adrenaline, my skin flushes, my hands start to tremble, and so on. Acute stress responses needn't happen only when one is faced with a real and/or physical threat either. People often feel fear, panic, and dread at things which aren't (or at least are not immediate) threats at all, such as heights, spiders, or the ocean. They also might feel fear or dread over more "existential" worries, such as social pressure, despair over the future, regret, or other such things. There are also fears of a more psychological nature, such as cognitive dissonance, and the fear of being wrong.

Here I want to discuss specifically these latter types of dread as they apply to the Christian. I believe that the Christian is in somewhat of a unique position when it comes to fear and dread and that God has provided specific consolations in the Scriptures that speak directly to this matter.

A Reassessment of the Cogito

• Thinking is occurring. 

• Such thinking must have a subject.

• That subject is what can be called "me."

• Therefore I think.

• Therefore I am.

A Refutation of Gordon Clark on the Cosmological Argument

Gordon H. Clark has criticized the broadly Aristotelian cosmological argument set forth by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. He displays serious misunderstandings of its basic premises, which I assume he allows because of his theological resistance to the idea that God's existence can be demonstrated apart from revelation. His position with regard to the argument in question is demonstrably false, and I shall refute him here.

A Brief Proof of the Causal Principle

• If a thing begins to exist (that is, its essence becomes imparted with existence), then the potential that it has for existence is actualized.

• Nothing can actualize its own potential for existence, because things which do not (yet) exist are purely potential, and that which is purely potential cannot actualize anything. 

• So if a thing begins to exist, its potential for existence must be actualized by something apart from itself.

• So if something begins to exist, it must have an external cause of its existence.