May we ever break any of the 10 commandments?

May we ever break any of the ten commandments? Jesus himself seems to suggest at Luke 13: 14 - 16 that we may perform what are sometimes called 'works of mercy' on the Sabbath, which would appear to be breaches of the fourth commandment. Is it ever permissible to steal? I think it might well be permissible to steal to save a life: for example to steal a weapon from a homicidal criminal. I think it's sometimes permissible to kill, e.g. in war, but never to murder. If you disagree or think that we may break other of the 10 commandments please post a comment below.

Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

13 "You shall not murder.

14 "You shall not commit adultery.

15 "You shall not steal.

16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Defoe on contraception

Many people know about Defoe’s ‘Shortest Way with Dissenters’, but here are some lesser-known pieces by him:

+ DEFOE, DANIEL

A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed (1727)

The title continues: "Showing: I. The nature of matrimony, its sacred original and the true meaning of its institution; II. The gross abuse of matrimonial chastity, from the wrong notions which have possessed the world, degenerating even to whoredom; III, The Diabolical practice of attempting to prevent child-bearing by physical preparations; IV. The fatal consequences of clandestine or forced marriages, through the persuasion, interests, or influence of parents and relations, to wed the person they have no love for, but oftentimes an aversion to; V. Of unequal matches, as to the disproportion of age; and how such, many ways, occasion a matrimonial whoredom; VI. How married persons may be guilty of conjugal lewdness, and that a man may, in effect, make a whore of his own wife; Also many other particulars of family concern." From the author of Robinson Crusoe and many other writings. 104 pages.

***

+ DEFOE, DANIEL

Religious Courtship: Being Historical Discourses, On the Necessity of Marrying Religious Husbands and Wives Only (1743)

Contraception in Protestantism

Lest anyone think that the previous posts have been particularly directed towards Roman Catholics, let me add that almost all Protestants until the 20th century thought contraception was wrong. The first occasion I can find of Protestants taking a different view is the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion in 1930. In 1980 the Lambeth Conference was, apparently, still condemning contraception.

Charles D. Provan has written a whole book, The Bible and Birth Control, on this topic. Here are some choice extracts:
Martin Luther once proclaimed that "the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family.... People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage" (Christian History, Issue 39, p. 24). Luther also said that birth control was the equivalent of sodomy (probably because of the likeness between homosexual wickedness and impotent sex). John Calvin declared that birth control was the murder of future persons and the Synod of Dort issued a Bible commentary which stated that contraception was the same as abortion.

Of course, I don't endorse the sentiments expressed above, but they make interesting reading. If you have any comments or know of earlier Protestant support for contraception please post below.

Sterility and Impotence

The Canons of the Catholic Church state:

Can. 1084 ß1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

ß2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

ß3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

I suggested in a previous post that this was inconsistent. This suggestion was wrong. The explanation is given in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:
'In matrimonial consent the spouses exchange the perpetual and exclusive right to conjugal acts per se apt for the generation of children, not the right to have children'.
But I don't know how far this right goes: it clearly extends to at least one such act -- if one's spouse refuses to engage at least once in a 'conjugal act per se apt for the generation of children' then the marriage is not consummated (in the eyes of Rome) and may legitimately be dissolved. But suppose one's spouse consented only during the so-called 'safe period', thus not allowing children to be generated, has the spouse then fulfilled the other's rights?

Were Adam and Eve married before the Fall?

Some questions inspired by Tim's helpful comment on the previous post:
(1) Were Adam and Eve married before the Fall?
(2) Did they have sexual intercourse before the Fall?
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (1) go here.
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (2) go here.
I'm not sure whether there is an 'official' RC line on these matters: anyone know?
John Keble certainly said `yes' to (1): his hymn `The Voice that breathed o'er Eden' is often used at weddings today.
Milton answered 'yes' to both. But why then were there no children? Just because the Fall followed on so closely (we presume) from Eve's creation? Or because sex had no procreative role then?

Any other answers out there? And what does this tell us about the nature and purpose of sex and marriage now? Roman Catholics say that it tells us that marriage is a sacrament, established as a means of grace to counteract the Fall. But is this right?

Why is there no marriage in the next life?

Luke 20:35-36 says that there is no marriage in the next life:
35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.
Why is this the case?
Some Roman Catholics argue that there is no marriage in the next life because there is no procreation in the next life, and this is because there is no death in the next life (v. 36). They then infer from this that there would have been no marriage if there had been no procreation, and from this that procreation is the main intended purpose of marriage, on which all other purposes depend, and from this that anyone intending to get married must intend to attempt procreation.
Where, if at all, does this line of reasoning go wrong? If it goes wrong what is the answer to the title question?

(Roman Catholics also infer that every act of sexual intercourse must not be artificially prevented from procreating; in this I think they do go wrong -- it doesn't follow from an institution's having a purpose that every act undertaken in the name of that institution must have the same purpose.)

If you have an answer please post it as a comment.

Does God love the reprobate?

Most Christians think that God loves the reprobate and wants to save them. Some Scriptures seem to support this, such as 2 Peter 3:9:
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Other Christians -- Calvinists -- thinks that God, in some sense, doesn't want to save them. Some Scriptures seem to suggest this, such as Luke 10:13:
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
The argument is: God could have performed in Tyre and Sidon the miracles that he actually did perform in Korazin and Bethsaida, and he knew that if he were to do so then the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would have repented, but he chose not to. If he chose not to that could only be because he didn't want to.
But here's another question for the Calvinist: why does God create the reprobate if he doesn't love them enough to save them? And why does God give them happiness if he doesn't love them enough to save them? Hoeksema says that God creates the reprobates for the sake of the elect (see also here) -- but is this really correct?

If you have an answer please post it as a comment.

Daniel Hill

Are the unregenerate in the image of God?

Here is a good posing of the question.

Here is an answer in the negative:

You can read Calvin's (rather ambiguous) answer here:

A bit of research seems to suggest that the Three Forms of Unity (particularly the Canons of Dort (Heads III and IV, Article 1)), but not the Westminster Standards, hold that the unregenerate are not in the image of God. John Murray wrote an essay defending the view that everyone is in the image of God, but I cannot find this on-line.

If you have an answer, please post it as a comment to this post.

Daniel Hill