# An awkward question



## Braden (Apr 11, 2018)

The Westminster would seem to suggest that sex is forbidden on the Lord's day. Am I mistaken?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 11, 2018)

Braden said:


> The Westminster would seem to suggest that sex is forbidden on the Lord's day. Am I mistaken?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk



Yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 11, 2018)

Braden said:


> The Westminster would seem to suggest that sex is forbidden on the Lord's day. Am I mistaken?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk



Q. 119. What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.

“Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Cor. 7:5).

Husbands and wives are not exempted from duties toward one another that God himself has not prohibited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 11, 2018)

Braden said:


> The Westminster would seem to suggest that sex is forbidden on the Lord's day. Am I mistaken?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk



What makes you say that? Are you referring to a particular section?


----------



## Braden (Apr 11, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> What makes you say that? Are you referring to a particular section?


I would be likely to consider it recreation. Don't get me wrong; I would love to be mistaken.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## ZackF (Apr 11, 2018)

If this is true I’d like to know how church discipline would play out in these cases with witnesses......

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Cedarbay (Apr 12, 2018)

It is not forbidden when both morning and evening sermons have been thoroughly discussed first.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 6


----------



## bookslover (Apr 12, 2018)

If you think sex is "work," you're not doing it right.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 5


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 12, 2018)

Braden said:


> The Westminster would seem to suggest that sex is forbidden on the Lord's day. Am I mistaken?



"Forbidden" may be too strong a word. I think a lot has to do with time constraints and personal conscience (your's _and_ your wife's). After all, just because you enjoy something does not in itself make it wrong on the Lord's Day. If that were true, I would have to give up my devotions, for it is my delight and often the purest joy to spend all the time on His Day in praise and worship. God is not some cosmic killjoy who wants you to be somber and serious and _never_ romantic on the Lord's Day. But I should add that as you grow in the Lord, you just might find more and more often the delight you are having in reading, prayer, praise, and godly fellowship becoming so delightful that the time for other delights is slipping away. There just might be time for anything else. Enjoy!

Isaiah 58:13-14
13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; 
and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, 
not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, 
and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.​
Amusing aside:
In Puritan New England it was commonly held that children were born on the same day of the week as they were conceived, and, that sex on the Sabbath was considered inappropriate. Some ministers even refused to baptize children born on the Sabbath. Six of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards' children were born on what we often call Sunday. (They _never_ called it that) I often smile as I think of their plight. God does have a sense of humor after all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Braden (Apr 12, 2018)

bookslover said:


> If you think sex is "work," you're not doing it right.


Not work but recreation.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Braden (Apr 12, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> "Forbidden" may be too strong a word. I think a lot has to do with time constraints and personal conscience (your's _and_ your wife's). After all, just because you enjoy something does not in itself make it wrong on the Lord's Day. If that were true, I would have to give up my devotions, for it is my delight and often the purest joy to spend all the time on His Day in praise and worship. God is not some cosmic killjoy who wants you to be somber and serious and _never_ romantic on the Lord's Day. But I should add that as you grow in the Lord, you just might find more and more often the delight you are having in reading, prayer, praise, and godly fellowship becoming so delightful that the time for other delights is slipping away. There just might be time for anything else. Enjoy!
> 
> Isaiah 58:13-14
> 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day;
> ...


Thanks for the story, that's wonderful 

I'm really curious now; why did they never call it Sunday?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 12, 2018)

Braden said:


> why did they never call it Sunday



Here's the best statement on the subject I found: From the New England Historical Society (search for "Monday")
Puritans thought it unchristian to use the names of heathenish deities. For a while, they managed to abandon the word ‘Monday’ and all the rest of the days of the week, as well as the names of the months.

So Sunday, derived from the Teutonic name for its sun deity, Sonntag, became simply the first. Monday was the second, Tuesday the third, and so forth.

The Puritans also called the months by numbers, with March being the first and February the twelfth.

Eventually, the traditional names for days and months crept back into the Puritan vocabulary.​
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday
*Pagan correspondence*
In Roman culture, Sunday was the day of the Sun god. In paganism, the sun was a source of life, giving warmth and illumination to mankind. It was the center of a popular cult among Romans, who would stand at dawn to catch the first rays of sunshine as they prayed.[_dubious – discuss_]​
See also: Why is Sunday called Sunday?
Because it's the day the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples set aside for the worship of the sun.​


----------



## Braden (Apr 12, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Here's the best statement on the subject I found: From the New England Historical Society (search for "Monday")
> Puritans thought it unchristian to use the names of heathenish deities. For a while, they managed to abandon the word ‘Monday’ and all the rest of the days of the week, as well as the names of the months.
> 
> So Sunday, derived from the Teutonic name for its sun deity, Sonntag, became simply the first. Monday was the second, Tuesday the third, and so forth.
> ...


So what did they use for the other days?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 12, 2018)

Braden said:


> So what did they use for the other days?



The answer is in the text you quoted above. You must have missed it. Sunday was called The Lord His Day, Monday was the second day_,_ Tuesday the third day, etc. It wasn't a bad or confusing system, for we still count the days in our heads, e.g., "It's Wednesday, and there are four more days until Sunday, etc." Also, I think most modern Reformed believers at least, call Sunday the Lord's Day—and _never_ Sunday.

Hope that helps.

Ed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 12, 2018)

I would think that Ephesians 5 (and interpreting Song of Songs with Ephesians 5 as the key) should weigh in here. The relationship between Christ and his church is mirrored in the relationship between husband and wife. If that is true, then marital intimacy is a reflection (though this would need to be carefully qualified) of the communion that happens in worship. I would think, therefore, that it would actually be a _highly appropriate_ Sabbath activity. If we divorce (pun intended) marital intimacy from Christ's relationship with His church, then we will see it as a primarily secular thing. But just because our culture has done so is no reason for us to do so. As I see it, there is still a lingering doubt on the part of many Christians as to whether it is a good thing at all. Some have said that even in the context of marriage, it is somehow still sinful. Lingering Platonism, anyone? The Bible tells us that the marriage bed can be kept pure, and should be (Heb 13:4), which must be interpreted in the light of 1 Corinthians 6. God commands marital intimacy in Genesis 1 and Genesis 9. Part of fulfilling the seventh commandment is actively to promote our own marriages. The problem with identifying sex as recreation is that it promotes the divorce between marriage and Christ/church, the very thing Ephesians 5 is supposed to prevent. I would put sex under the category of fellowship. It is a very special kind of fellowship, to be sure, one that has many differences with the normal fellowship of one believer to another. Nevertheless, it does not belong in the category of recreation, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Apr 12, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> "It's Wednesday, and there are three more days until Sunday, etc."



You might want to try counting that out again.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 12, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> The problem with identifying sex as recreation is that it promotes the divorce between marriage and Christ/church, the very thing Ephesians 5 is supposed to prevent. I would put sex under the category of fellowship. It is a very special kind of fellowship, to be sure, one that has many differences with the normal fellowship of one believer to another. Nevertheless, it does not belong in the category of recreation, in my opinion.



Quite right, Lane. Married sexuality is not recreation (and, of course, the WCF does not have that in the singular, at any rate, as you know: it's "recreations"). Married sexuality is one of the most important expressions of love that exists and to reduce it to the level of recreation(s) is to denigrate it and to treat it with an attitude that does not befit its significance as κοινωνία within the sacred bonds of marriage. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF (Apr 12, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Quite right, Lane. Married sexuality is not recreation (and, of course, the WCF does not have that in the singular, at any rate, as you know: it's "recreations"). Married sexuality is one of the most important expressions of love that exists and to reduce it to the level of recreation(s) is to denigrate it and to treat it with an attitude that does not befit its significance as κοινωνία within the sacred bonds of marriage.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


So we men should instruct our wives that sex is a work of necessity?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 12, 2018)

No wonder people got tired of the Puritans and some of their excesses.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 12, 2018)

Lane and Alan beat me to it.

Calling intimacy between husband and wife "recreation" diminishes what God has ordained as a remarkable and vivid gift--a physical reminder of the ineffable: his gracious love to his church in Christ.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

I’m not really seeing what else needs to go beyond “defraud ye not one the other.”

It is not restricted, but by consent, which isn’t a prohibitive category respecting the fourth commandment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Quite right, Lane. Married sexuality is not recreation (and, of course, the WCF does not have that in the singular, at any rate, as you know: it's "recreations"). Married sexuality is one of the most important expressions of love that exists and to reduce it to the level of recreation(s) is to denigrate it and to treat it with an attitude that does not befit its significance as κοινωνία within the sacred bonds of marriage.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



(It's also fun, Alan.)


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> No wonder people got tired of the Puritans and some of their excesses.



Puritanism was a healthy, somewhat influential movement (remembering it was always a minority movement among the general public) from the 1640s through the 1680s, generally speaking. By 1700, though, it was dead. Collapsed under its own weight, I think.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 13, 2018)

Richard:

You describe only later Stuart Puritanism. 

The movement begin, of course, in the Tudor period (with its four main parties, including an episcopal one) and was nothing more, in its English manifestation, than a desire for further Reformation of the church in the aftermath of the inadequate Elizabethan settlement, which settlement yielded a _via media_ rather than a Reformed church (like the continental ones). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

Edward said:


> You might want to try counting that out again.



No, that’s right. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday are three full days until the Lord’s Day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 13, 2018)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> No, that’s right. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday are three full days until the Lord’s Day.



That's what I thought too. The Bible sometimes relates time like that. But who am I to take a que from the Bible. So, I edited my post and changed it to _four_ days to keep everyone in our modern world happy.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> That's what I thought too. The Bible sometimes relates time like that. But who am I to take a que from the Bible. So, I edited my post and changed it to _four_ days to keep everyone in our modern world happy.


Lol. Yeah, I've seen it both ways.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 13, 2018)

ZackF said:


> So we men should instruct our wives that sex is a work of necessity?



Or mercy, as the case may be

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Richard:
> 
> You describe only later Stuart Puritanism.
> 
> ...



True.

But I was thinking more of the collapse in its impact on the overall culture in England: I'm sure publishers were quite happy to let all those big, fat books go out of print since they were probably bought only by other Puritans; a new generation arose which thought: "Sit on hard benches for four or five hours, listening to hour-long prayers and two-hour sermons ("And now, 17thly...")? Naw, we're good."

It's interesting to see how thorough the collapse was, too. By 1703, when Jonathan Edwards was born, John Owen had been dead for 20 years, and Richard Baxter for 12. By the 1740s, during England's "Augustan Period," I think many people in England looked back on their ancestors of a century before and thought: "They started actual wars over religious questions? What was wrong with those people?"

The Puritan movement was a good thing, by and large, and it served its purpose in its time. But it's collapse was nearly total - and then it got buried under the Enlightenment movement later in the 18th century.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 13, 2018)

It's only a sin if you enjoy it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

Respectfully, I cannot help but think some here are being a little careless with their comments on sex. I’m all for jesting, but the subject matter can easily become coarse.

I’m not a moderator, but I’m just giving my opinion.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 13, 2018)

With respect to all involved, I think the debate over sex as a recreation misses the point. That sex isn't, or isn't merely, a recreation does not establish its permissibility for a Westminsterian Sabbath. Regardless of its mystical and allegorical aspects, sex is a worldly activity. Not worldly in a moral or Platonic sense, but in that it belongs to the common and secular activities of life and, indeed, will pass away in the New Heavens and New Earth. That being the case, to be appropriate for the Sabbath it needs to be an act of necessity or mercy and neither has been established at this point. It may not be (merely) a recreation, but, unlike Pagans, we don't view it as an act of worship either. Many may find the Puritan position as too strict, but the OP's question is about sex's permissibility specifically under the Westminster economy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 13, 2018)

Sex is never called recreation in Scripture but is of a different category altogether, "knowing" your wife or "becoming one flesh" and thus needn't be forbidden on the Sabbath. It is an appropriate intercourse between persons such as greeting a neighbor or talking to someone in church. Nobody claims we must be mute on the Sabbath and most of you would answer your telephone if it rang on the Sabbath and a family member wanted the news. Marriage and spousal intimacy is another appropriate intercourse between persons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> With respect to all involved, I think the debate over sex as a recreation misses the point. That sex isn't, or isn't merely, a recreation does not establish its permissibility for a Westminsterian Sabbath. Regardless of its mystical and allegorical aspects, sex is a worldly activity. Not worldly in a moral or Platonic sense, but in that it belongs to the common and secular activities of life and, indeed, will pass away in the New Heavens and New Earth. That being the case, to be appropriate for the Sabbath it needs to be an act of necessity or mercy and neither has been established at this point. It may not be (merely) a recreation, but, unlike Pagans, we don't view it as an act of worship either. Many may find the Puritan position as too strict, but the OP's question is about sex's permissibility specifically under the Westminster economy.



I agree with nearly everything, including the scope of the OP, singularity in this earthly age, and necessity and mercy being more beneficial categories under which the question should be considered in the Westminster Standards.

My only disagreement is in my original additional inclusion of 1 Cor 7:5. I think it would be a deprivation of a legitimate conjugal right that isn’t expressly prohibited. Of course, that leaves us with your other point about whether the language in the Standards is overly restrictive or too strict or perhaps too vague with respect to this particular question. 

I do see a lot of value in considering the question and I’d also encourage those married to think about consenting to pray and/or fast in the place of the activity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 13, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Sex is never called recreation in Scripture but is of a different category altogether, "knowing" your wife or "becoming one flesh" and thus needn't be forbidden on the Sabbath. It is an appropriate intercourse between persons such as greeting a neighbor or talking to someone in church. Nobody claims we must be mute on the Sabbath and most of you would answer your telephone if it rang on the Sabbath and a family member wanted the news. Marriage and spousal intimacy is another appropriate intercourse between persons.



For what it's worth, Puritans also strongly discouraged conversations between believers about non-sacred things on the Lord's Day, including the news. To paraphase Bownd, man is not only bound to rest from labours and worldly employments but also from speaking of them or occupying our minds with them. The controlling principle continues to be that our responsibility is in "making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship." I'm not sure that sex would qualify as analogous to a mere greeting. 

I will admit that I am somewhat lax, perhaps more than I should be, in this respect in my Lord's Day conversations, but I recognize and own that my practice in doing so is a departure from a confessional view of the requirements of the Sabbath.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 13, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> For what it's worth, Puritans also strongly discouraged conversations between believers about non-sacred things on the Lord's Day, including the news. To paraphase Bownd, man is not only bound to rest from labours and worldly employments but also from speaking of them or occupying our minds with them. The controlling principle continues to be that our responsibility is in "making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship." I'm not sure that sex would qualify as analogous to a mere greeting.
> 
> I will admit that I am somewhat lax, perhaps more than I should be, in this respect in my Lord's Day conversations, but I recognize and own that my practice in doing so is a departure from a confessional view of the requirements of the Sabbath.



I take most of the blame for those momentary departures, but they’re not because I want to disregard the Standards or disrespect the Sabbath. I simply see a little more latitude in the Scripture directly with the Standards serving as more of protection against sin on this point.

I make no claims to better judgment than others on this point and it would certainly be to my advantage to be more circumspect in my practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 13, 2018)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I agree with nearly everything, including the scope of the OP, singularity in this earthly age, and necessity and mercy being more beneficial categories under which the question should be considered in the Westminster Standards.
> 
> My only disagreement is in my original additional inclusion of 1 Cor 7:5. I think it would be a deprivation of a legitimate conjugal right that isn’t expressly prohibited. Of course, that leaves us with your other point about whether the language in the Standards is overly restrictive or too strict or perhaps too vague with respect to this particular question.
> 
> ...



It's a good point that I didn't read carefully enough when you first made it. I believe that Q. 119 is speaking specifically of the duties of the Lord's Day rather than duties in general, which may well otherwise include such worldly labours as are prohibited on the Lord's Day. The 1 Cor passage does have a clear exception for periods of fasting and prayer which, conceivably, may apply to the duties of private and public worship required of us on the Lord's Day. Bownd does note in another context that the Sabbath partakes of the nature of a special day of fasting, but that's in reference to the length of the day. I'm not aware of this being addressed anywhere in Puritan literature, I took a quick look through Gouge but didn't see anything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Apr 14, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> It's a good point that I didn't read carefully enough when you first made it. I believe that Q. 119 is speaking specifically of the duties of the Lord's Day rather than duties in general, which may well otherwise include such worldly labours as are prohibited on the Lord's Day. The 1 Cor passage does have a clear exception for periods of fasting and prayer which, conceivably, may apply to the duties of private and public worship required of us on the Lord's Day. Bownd does note in another context that the Sabbath partakes of the nature of a special day of fasting, but that's in reference to the length of the day. I'm not aware of this being addressed anywhere in Puritan literature, I took a quick look through Gouge but didn't see anything.



I didn’t see much in my Bownd copy or Gouge, but I try to reconcile the “consent” which seems to be what is determined by the parties and its relationship to the fasting/prayer for a time. If it was prohibited, consent would be more of a command. It’s hard to see a biblical case against it as a right that extends to all days, excepting agreement to pray/fast. The apostle even goes so far as to indicate that marriage presents unique challenges for believers to give their attention wholly to daily exercises of piety and worship without distraction. 1 Cor. 7:32–35. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 14, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Regardless of its mystical and allegorical aspects, sex is a worldly activity. Not worldly in a moral or Platonic sense, but in that it belongs to the common and secular activities of life and, indeed, will pass away in the New Heavens and New Earth.



I think that you don't quite rightly conceive of marriage and sexuality here.

While there will not be marriage in the NH and E, that to which marriage points and testifies--union and communion between believers (with Christ at the center), bespeaking the union between Christ and His Church-- will come to its ultimate expression. Marriage and sexuality in that form will not there be present, but all that marriage and sexuality represent at its best and deepest will be perfectly realized in us all: the union and communion that sex represents here will receive its highest realization there. You write as if sex and marriage mean the same thing for believer and unbeliever--they most decidedly do not; the unbeliever partakes of the institution, but realizes nothing of what lies at its core (as is true of all the unbelievers' participation in the created order).

Here, those who are married can have restored marriages in Christ, imperfect though they remain. There we will all have, symbolized by the great marriage feast, to which communion points, the full coming into its own of union with God and each other (which we celebrate at the Table now). You really can't make sense of what Paul says of marriage, of what the Song of Songs says, etc. if you speak of marriage in the life of the believer as bearing the same weight and meaning as it does in the life of the unbeliever.

I will grant that this does not answer every question about the Sabbath and sexuality. One might argue that the Sabbath is a proper time for drawing apart so that each can draw closer to God (I Cor. 7:5), the argument in these verses being that the only proper intermission in married sexuality is for each to draw nearer to God in prayer and then come together again.

My concern is that no address to this question should be made on the basis of sex being a worldly activity belonging to the secular life. Not for Christians. For Christians it is a reflection of a union and communion that shall come to highest expression in the next world. Nothing means the same thing for the Christian as it does for the non-Christian, though we share in it (eating doesn't, for example; nor labor), especially something like marriage and sex.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 14, 2018)

To follow-up on my last post, a colleague of mine (Marcus Mininger) helpfully addresses what I've suggested above: http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=855.

He more fully addresses this here: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/06_mininger_journal2014.pdf.

Again, I realize that one may still argue biblically and confessionally about the specific question of sex on the Lord's Day, but I think that one should do so from a right perspective of marriage and sexuality, which I attempt to set out here very briefly and these articles set out more clearly and fully. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 14, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I think that you don't quite rightly conceive of marriage and sexuality here.
> 
> While there will not be marriage in the NH and E, that to which marriage points and testifies--union and communion between believers (with Christ at the center), bespeaking the union between Christ and His Church-- will come to its ultimate expression. Marriage and sexuality in that form will not there be present, but all that marriage and sexuality represent at its best and deepest will be perfectly realized in us all: the union and communion that sex represents here will receive its highest realization there. You write as if sex and marriage mean the same thing for believer and unbeliever--they most decidedly do not; the unbeliever partakes of the institution, but realizes nothing of what lies at its core (as is true of all the unbelievers' participation in the created order).
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said, but I don't believe that any of it alters my points. Your last paragraph is key, for were we to carry that line of reasoning forward, there would be no worldly, or, if you prefer, common activities for the Christian and that simply isn't true despite what more radical Neo-Kuyperians might claim. It's certainly the case that common activities have different meanings and expressions for the unbeliever and the believer and especially marriage and sexuality. At some level, however, we still share them because they are activities that belong to the common, Creational economy like labour, eating, child-rearing, etc. They are not cultic activities and are not supplied by special revelation though their deeper meaning and significant is certainly unfolded through it. 

I will grant that marriage and sexual is more significant and more mysterious than most common activities, but that does not transmit it to the realm of the cultic. I hope that I have been clear that worldly, in this context, is _not_ a moral category. Appropriate worldly labours and duties are very good for the Christian to perform on common days and certainly have religious implications. But if we lose the distinction between the sacred and secular, we also lose the Lord's Day altogether.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 14, 2018)

So, Chris, husband and wife are one flesh, but that gets automatically interrupted every Sabbath? I don't think I can go there. I'm with Alan on this one. It is not a secular or worldly activity for the Christian. The Bible never speaks of it in those terms for believers. The only times it hints at a worldliness of sex is when it is being done outside of marriage, against marriage, or by unbelievers. Song of Songs runs directly against your position, if interpreted through the key of Ephesians 5.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 14, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> But if we lose the distinction between the sacred and secular, we also lose the Lord's Day altogether.



I stumble here.

How can we ever really divide the "secular" from the "sacred" while we live here on earth? If during the work-week, I perform some worldy duty to the glory of God, is that not a sacred endeavor?

Let me be clear, I am not applying the argument that, because everything we do ought to be sacred, we don't need the Sabbath. No, there remains a Sabbath, and I think the distinction lies in where our primary focus lies on that day.

But if we go to far in trying to apply the secular vs sacred test, we might find ourselves agonizing on whether we can even eat or go to the bathroom on the Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 14, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> I stumble here.
> 
> How can we ever really divide the "secular" from the "sacred" while we live here on earth? If during the work-week, I perform some worldy duty to the glory of God, is that not a sacred endeavor?
> 
> ...


Because the Lord's Day itself is God setting apart a day from out of the secular economy unto the peculiar and sacred duty of worship. Secular actions performed on the day fall under the works of necessity and mercy exceptions (hence eating and bathroom use). The language of "worldly employments" in the catechism assumes such a distinction. If there are no "worldly employments" for the Christian, the catechism is nonsensical.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 14, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> So, Chris, husband and wife are one flesh, but that gets automatically interrupted every Sabbath? I don't think I can go there. I'm with Alan on this one. It is not a secular or worldly activity for the Christian. The Bible never speaks of it in those terms for believers. The only times it hints at a worldliness of sex is when it is being done outside of marriage, against marriage, or by unbelievers. Song of Songs runs directly against your position, if interpreted through the key of Ephesians 5.


I would think that we would all agree that husband and wife remain one flesh even in the periods where they are not having sex. The duties of the Lord's Day do not change the relationship but rather the expression of it. In a similar way the relationship of father and son remains (also a relationship with rich biblical significance) but the duties of the Lord's Day restricts some activities that express that relationship. 

To clarify for all, I am not actually arguing that sex is prohibited, but rather that seeing as having spiritual significance or not being recreation does not necessarily make it permissible. I think the Corinthians argument Ryan put forward is the strongest yet in support of its permissibility. If it not public or private worship (and thus sacred) or a duty of mercy or necessity it is proscribed unless a peculiar and biblical case can be made for its exception. There is a strong presumption against anything that doesn't fit those categories. I'm not convinced that waxing poetic (rightfully) about its rich biblical significance supplies such an exception. I have no problem with such an exception but I think the arguments here need to be tightened up even as I recognize that those presenting them in this thread are far my superiors in Biblical and theological erudition.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 14, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> I think the Corinthians argument Ryan put forward is the strongest yet in support of its permissibility. If it not public or private worship (and thus sacred) or a duty of mercy or necessity it is proscribed unless a peculiar and biblical case can be made for its exception. There is a strong presumption against anything that doesn't fit those categories.



Chris:

Though I still differ with you in some of your approach here, I deeply appreciate your careful argumentation. I believe that we are not far apart in this matter.

I have not specifically commented on Ryan's argumentation from the earlier part of I Cor. 7 (I cited v. 5 as possible grounds for Sabbath sexual intermission), but I believe that it is valid, and, in this case, it is at the discretion of the parties. In other words, I do not believe that there is a particular limit on the times when a couple may engage sexually, except when they both agree to do so for prayer and fasting.

Apart from the question of the ordinary propriety of fasting on the Lord's Day (it's not conceived, especially as the day of Resurrection, as one for fasting/mourning but rejoicing), I believe that I Corinthians 7 makes it clear that there is no external circumstance or authority that can impose on a couple a necessity that they abstain from sexual intercourse: it is only their mutual decision to do so for prayer and fasting that creates the circumstance.

Thus, even on the Sabbath, married sexuality can well be construed either as a work of necessity or mercy, depending on circumstances that I could example but prefer not to do here. And I mean by that not hypotheticals, but real and clear instances as to how the expression of love in sex is an ongoing reality of mercy (love, kindness, consideration, concern) and necessity (the I Corinthians 7 text itself makes clear its necessity; again, examples could be given here that would make it clear).

As always, brother, I deeply appreciate the spirit in which you address matters (and you take a back seat to no one in your theological competency!).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 14, 2018)

In addition to Alan's fine argumentation, I would argue that it is conducive to worship, especially given its rich biblical-theological meaning. I guess that is what I have been trying to argue all along. However, I also agree that it can fit the categories of mercy and necessity under various circumstances. Hence, in all the Sabbath categories that matter, it fits.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cedarbay (Apr 14, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> To follow-up on my last post, a colleague of mine (Marcus Mininger) helpfully addresses what I've suggested above: http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=855.
> 
> He more fully addresses this here: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/06_mininger_journal2014.pdf.
> 
> ...


I read through the longer article and want to spend some time there after printing it out. I found it easy to understand, insightful and edifying. Thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 14, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Because the Lord's Day itself is God setting apart a day from out of the secular economy unto the peculiar and sacred duty of worship. Secular actions performed on the day fall under the works of necessity and mercy exceptions (hence eating and bathroom use). The language of "worldly employments" in the catechism assumes such a distinction. If there are no "worldly employments" for the Christian, the catechism is nonsensical.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk



I join Alan in thanking you for your posts. I have a better understanding of what you say.

I will explain my stumbling point: it has to do with the word "sacred." I have no complaint against a distinction between "worldly" and "heavenly," or "the world" and "kingdom of heaven." I agree that the Sabbath is a setting apart of a day to turn away from the worldly cares and concerns, and to turn toward a holy rest with worship and devotion towards God. That's what I meant by focus.

So, if you use sacred vs secular in the way I use worldly vs heavenly, my quibbles decrease. My rearguard focus is defending against the sacred vs secular distinction being used to justify a "go to church and fulfill your duties until next week" mentality.

Connected with that concern is another: the tendency of us fallen souls to focus on a formula rather than on God. If we view the Sabbath from the perspective of "all these things are prohibited unless I can find an exception," I sense we can fall into a worldly care approach to our Sabbath keeping. But if we bring ourselves to a "seek ye first the Kingdom" perspective, things fall into place much easier.

Tying that to the topic of the thread, I leave off with simply saying I don't see good reason to put marital intimacy into the category of "secular", or "worldly" for that matter.

Blessings.

Vic

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Apr 14, 2018)

Jesus says it's lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Is union between husband and wife-- even in the most intimate way-- good?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 14, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> In addition to Alan's fine argumentation, I would argue that it is conducive to worship, especially given its rich biblical-theological meaning.



I agree entirely, Lane. 

This is what I was seeking to argue, before noting how it can be construed variously, in certain circumstances, as a work of necessity and/or mercy. 

Much more could be said about why (some of it has already been suggested by several of us here), but I appreciate Lane's explicitness about it here. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2018)

I think a bit of common sense does not go amiss here, though, truth be told, common sense is not that common in modern Reformed circles. Most of us would recognise that eating and washing are works of necessity on the Lord's Day. I do not see why rendering due benevolence does not fall into the same category. However, no one with an ounce of gumption would argue that just because it is lawful to eat and wash on the Sabbath that we should, therefore, spend hours on end eating and washing. Apply the same principle to the topic raised in the OP and I think you will quickly figure out what is lawful and unlawful.


----------



## brendanchatt (Apr 14, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> While there will not be marriage in the NH and E, that to which marriage points and testifies--union and communion between believers (with Christ at the center)



Unlike my co-workers, I see my work as service to Christ.

I think it’s more helpful to consider if marital relations are necessity or mercy.

Like you do here,


Alan D. Strange said:


> Chris:
> 
> Though I still differ with you in some of your approach here, I deeply appreciate your careful argumentation. I believe that we are not far apart in this matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## brendanchatt (Apr 14, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> So, Chris, husband and wife are one flesh, but that gets automatically interrupted every Sabbath?



So whenever they’re not having sex or are prevented from it they are not one flesh?

I wouldn’t argue from this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2018)

So...um....today's the Sabbath.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## timfost (Apr 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So...um....today's the Sabbath.



Yeah, this thread stops here.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 15, 2018)

timfost said:


> Yeah, this thread stops here.



I agree. Besides, it never made it to *Featured* level anyway.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 15, 2018)

Yes, let's give this one a rest for the time being.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 23, 2018)

Thread re-opened.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 24, 2018)

Something I have taught for some time is that sexual union between a husband and wife is much more than an act of the flesh. Let me explain. I found a definition of Communion once that called it spiritual intercourse. That provoked me to think about what Communion is for.

One thing communion does is bring us together to get things right and just. It is a time to say, "Are all things okay between me and thee?" If we neglect that part it is just drinking wine and eating bread to satisfy the flesh. We all should know that that leads to hurt and problems. The Corinthians were reprimanded for their improper desire and use of the Lord's Table. (I Corinthians 11:23-34)

Jesus wants us to be right with man and God before he wants our gifts and offerings. Examine Jesus' teaching concerning how one should come to the altar. "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matthew 5:23,24) "To obey is better than sacrifice.' The table of communion is where God points out sin in our lives so we can repent and glorify Him. The communion table can be where some of the best healing goes on in the church today. Many believers have walked away I from the altar of communion humbled and seeking 'reconciliation with those they have offended. The phrase "please forgive me" has healed many relationships and prevented much bitterness because of what has been done at the table of the Lord.

I suggest that that is true for sexual union. It is a spiritual time to make sure things are right. It is a time to reflect on the love shared and provided. It is a truly spiritual act and sacred when seen from the proper perspective. It should be a thing partaken of on the Sabbath in such a way.


----------

