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.

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.