# Sports and Dancing



## Simply_Nikki (Feb 10, 2008)

I have to read this book for my senior capstone class about college politics. This week's topic is about sports. So... while reading the early development of sports in America I came across something that said:

"At American schools and colleges, games and contests of all sorts took a little longer to evolve. Early-ninetheenth-century American scholars, rooted in the Calvinist tradition thought playing sports was about as moral as dancing"

This was cited as being from a book called Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant American by Clifford Putney on page 20. 

Has anyone heard of this book or this author? Also what were calvin's true views on sports and dancing? Obviously I know he did not believe in taking part in these activies on the sabbath. But did he think participating in them were moral infractions?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 10, 2008)

I would hope Calvin was against dancing and tolerant of 'innocent' sports in moderation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2008)

Speaking to the issue of Puritans and sports, it must be remembered that many Puritans were punished for opposing King James I's _Book of Sports_, a book designed to promote sports on the Lord's Day. They also wrote against 'blood sports' (such as 'bearbaiting') and gambling. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the Puritans opposed all sports. There are many Puritans who wrote in favor of physical recreation, such as sports, while making distinctions such as avoiding the immoderate use of recreation/sports, emphasizing the proper time and place for such activities, and the proper goals, which would be to refresh the body and mind, promote godly values, etc. To give one example, here is William Perkins (quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, _A Puritan Golden Treasury_):



> Games may be divided into three sorts: games of wit or industry, games of hazard, and a mixture of both. Games of wit or industry are such as are ordered by the skill and industry of man. Of this sort are shooting in the longbow, shooting in the caliver, running, wrestling, fencing, music, and the games of chess and draughts...These, and all of this kind, wherein the industry of the mind and body hath the chiefest stroke, are very commendable, and not to be disliked. Games of hazard are those in which hazard only bears the sway and orders the game, and not wit: wherein also there is, as we say, chance, yea mere chance in regard of us. Now games that are of mere hazard, by the consent of godly divines are unlawful. The reasons are these: First, games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion, in which we refer unto the God determination of things of moment that can no other way be determined...Secondly, such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow...Thirdly, covetousness is commonly the ground of them all. Whereupon it is that men usually play for money. And for these causes such plays...are unlawful. The third kind of plays are mixed, which stand partly of hazard and partly of wit, and in which hazard begins the game and skill gets the victory, and that which is defective by reason of hazard is corrected by wit...Now the common opinion of learned divines is that, as they are not to be commended, so they are not simply to be condemned, and if they be used they must be used very sparingly.



Leland Ryken (_Worldly Saints_, pp. 189-190) notes: 



> John Downame wrote that people should moderately partake of such pastimes as
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ryken also mentions that the English Puritan Parliament of 1647 decreed that every second Tuesday of the month should be a day whereupon all businesses were closed to allow for the recreation of workers (Ibid, p. 190).

Bruce C. Daniels (_Puritans at Play_, pp. 165-167) notes:



> By the end of the [16th] century, Puritans had become implacably opposed to ball and blood sports. They condemned them with the vehemence usually reserved for special evils such as theater or organ music. Puritans denounced these activities so heatedly and so often that the word "sport" to them came to mean ball games and bloody contests. Hunting, fishing, and martial competitions, of which they did approve, were defined out of the term. Hence, Puritan rhetoric seemed to condemn all sport, though in fact it did not.
> ...
> Blood sports so obviously offend modern sensibilities that we have little difficulty understanding the Puritans' horror of them. Ball sports, however, are another matter. In the twentieth century, they appear innocent, even healthy, so the contempt they engendered in the seventeenth century is difficult to comprehend. It derived, however, not from the intrinsic activity of playing with a ball itself, but from what were regarded as the inevitable ancillary evils that accompanied ball playing and from the historical evils associated with it in England.



Hope this helps.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 10, 2008)

> "At American schools and colleges, games and contests of all sorts took a little longer to evolve. Early-ninetheenth-century American scholars, rooted in the Calvinist tradition thought playing sports was about as moral as dancing"


I'd agree with this statement. Dancing _is_ as just as moral as playing sports. It's like saying "watering the garden is as moral as standing on one foot".


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 10, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I would hope Calvin was against dancing and tolerant of 'innocent' sports in moderation.


Yes, although you haven't gone quite far enough. I hope Calvin was against having fun!


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 10, 2008)

joshua said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, although you haven't gone quite far enough. I hope Calvin was against having fun!
> ...


----------



## SRoper (Feb 10, 2008)

Josh, did you smile at that comment? Don't you know this is the _Puritan_board? Please try to maintain a dour face.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 10, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshire Cat said:
> ...



Sorry, Calvin was not against having fun!
"We have never been forbidden to laugh, or to be filled, or to join new possessions to old or ancestral ones, or to delight in in musical harmony, or to drink wine." -- John Calvin, Institutes III:19.9


----------



## bradofshaw (Feb 10, 2008)

I think the puritans were probably in favor of baseball, but would most likely frown upon the playing of the sport known as soccer.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 10, 2008)

bradofshaw said:


> I think the puritans were probably in favor of baseball, but would most likely frown upon the playing of the sport known as soccer.



Rugby on the other hand...


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Exagorazo said:


> Dancing _is_ as just as moral as playing sports.



The Westminster Divines disagreed with you (as do I) 

*Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer:* The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are...all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel...lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

*Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer:* The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are...immoderate use of...recreations...


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > Dancing _is_ as just as moral as playing sports.
> ...


Do you believe that the Westminster Divines were thought that all books were forbidden by the seventh commandment?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Exagorazo said:


> Do you believe that the Westminster Divines were thought that all books were forbidden by the seventh commandment?



Check out the adjective "lascivious". The question is then, can dancing be anything other than lascivious to which I would reply "no". Mixed dancing is forbidden by the decalogue. As we are to be whiter than white and abstain from all appearance of evil we ought not to take part in any dancings whether mixed or not.

*FYI:* BBC News | NORTHERN IRELAND | Church brands line-dancing 'sinful'

As for sports, those which tend to do harm to others would violate the sixth commandment and we ought not let them dominate our lives. As a form of recreation, fitness most sports would be fine though in my opinion.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that the Westminster Divines were thought that all books were forbidden by the seventh commandment?
> ...


Why then did the Westminster divines decide to brand "dancing" with the adjective "lascivious"? Why not just put "all forms of dancing"?

Westminster definitely does not side with you on this issue. You are going outside what the Catechism actually says. I submit that if you use Qn 139 to brand all kinds of dancing as "lascivious" then you must do so to all the other nouns in that phrase.



AV1611 said:


> *FYI:* BBC News | NORTHERN IRELAND | Church brands line-dancing 'sinful'


Thank God that David was not a member of the FPC in Northern Ireland.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Exagorazo said:


> Why then did the Westminster divines decide to brand "dancing" with the adjective "lascivious"? Why not just put "all forms of dancing"?



They were condemning lascivious dancing. Question, what does lascivious mean? Well Thayer's Lexicon notes "wanton (acts or) manners, filthy words, indecent bodily movements" and "unchaste handling of males and females". 

We are to abstain from that which is sinful (mixed dancing) and that which could cause others to sin (other forms of dancing).

Christians and Dancing Homepage.



Exagorazo said:


> Thank God that David was not a member of the FPC in Northern Ireland.



Are you seriously trying to argue that because the King of Israel, inspired by the Spirit of God, danced before the Ark of the Covenant in delight at God's presence being returned to Jerusalem we are able to engage in mixed dancing?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster says that *all* dancing is wrong; that position is unbiblical. Though this does not answer the question of whether or not mixed dancing is sinful.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > Why then did the Westminster divines decide to brand "dancing" with the adjective "lascivious"? Why not just put "all forms of dancing"?
> ...


You have gone beyond the bounds of the confession, and therefore beyond the bounds of my conscience. You have quoted the confession in support of your claims, which I believe is a misrepresentation. The confession _does not say_ that all forms of dancing are sinful, and so you cannot garner its support on this issue.



AV1611 said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God that David was not a member of the FPC in Northern Ireland.
> ...





> _The Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland has reminded its members that all dancing is sinful._



As Daniel said, the FPC in Northern Ireland has taken an unbiblical stand on this issue, and I believe you have also, Richard.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the King of Israel, inspired by the Spirit of God, caused those around him to sin when he danced before the Ark of the Covenant?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

How did it reach such an excess one says? This is a perfect example of going too far the other way to balance what was happening during those times, and still happens today. Balance is the hardest objective for sinful man is it not?

To oppose all mixed dancing is a legalistic Pharisitical spirit with a capital P. Now I do not throw that term around much becasue it is used very improper at times. And it is frowned upon at times here as being inflammatory, but if it walks like a duck, well you know the rest.

Now before you, Rich[AV 1611], ask me if I am consider the 'divines' as having this spirit regarding this topic, just so I am clear, YES, if the are agreeing with you on this matter. I am not sure if that is the case though. This is as foolish as some who do not want their pictures taken. A spirit of bondage and false witness. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is NEVER the answer, but found necessary at times by some, wrongly, but justifiable in their own eyes.


----------



## Coram Deo (Feb 11, 2008)

This issue has recently come up within our family due to a wedding.... I agree with Exagorazo..... The scriptures and the Westminster Catechism does not condemn all dancing nor does it condemn all mix dancing... The matter "Lascivious" and "Promiscuous" Dancing.. Those Dances that act like sex or sexual acts out on the dance floor.... (Which throws out about almost every Modern Dance).. It is nothing more and or less then p0rnography on the Dance Floor.

But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious and Promiscuous. Some are quite innocent and folky... I agree that those who are not married need to be extra careful in chaste of heart when dancing. There is nothing wrong for married people to dance (Even Publicly) unless it is Lascivious or Promiscuous.

To dance or Not to dance is the question and I think Moderate Non Pornographic Dancing is allowed by scripture by Non Pornographic Music. Anything that outside of Marriage and not done privately by husband and wife that entices lust is to be avoided and forbidden by the Seventh Commandment... But I find it very hard to see how the old English Country Dance "Grimstock" entices lust or acts like a sexual act out on the dance floor....

Shockingly, My wife and I have been to a number of Reformed Baptist Weddings and have been SHOCKED by some of the Promiscuous Dancing that has taken place on the dance floor including Raggee Dancing and the NightClub Like Dancing.... It is a weakness that Reformed Baptist are going to have to come to grips with.. My wife and I never partook and left soon after the dancing started....



AV1611 said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that the Westminster Divines were thought that all books were forbidden by the seventh commandment?
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

thunaer said:


> But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious



This is where we would have to disagree.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious
> ...



Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious
> ...



Richard, with all due respect, oh perhaps no due respect since I find this belief not due any respect,[] why on God's earth would you even rise and fall on this ant hill? And a handshake will not happen to disagree on this. I cannot even picture myself saying while shaking your hand,"Well richard, as ridiculous and base I find this opinion, let's shake hands and agree to disagree"

We need an avatar that is a "Pile of dung" 

http://images.neopets.com/neoboards/avatars/dung.gif


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?



I would have to answer in the affirmative. A married couple can still suffer from lustful excitements that are sinful. Furthermore, it would set a bad example for others. 

I have talked at length with this issue with our curate who enjoys dancing and who met his wife at university through it. He has not been able to convince me that the stance I have taken is unbiblical so I very much doubt you will either hence I will leave the matter there.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?
> ...



How can a married couple have sinful lustful desires towards one another? Is the Song of Solomon lustful? There was an idea among some early church fathers that men committed lust while having sex with their wives. Such a notion is derived from Greek philosophy, not from the Scriptures.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?
> ...



Then your curate is either; 1) not trying becasue he, as I also feel, that certain beliefs do not demand much discussion to convince the person of their errors. The more attention one gives a ridiculous teaching, the more it becomes validated.

or 2) You have become hardened to scripture in this specific area.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?
> ...




Setting a bad example, I could grant. But a husband and wife sin when they desire one another? Oh please. Go and get married!


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





Augustine was famous for this error. Here is an honest question. Is it lustful to look at your wife and think about having sex with her? When does a spouse cross the line? 

Is it lustful to look at an unmarried person and think about sex if you are also unmarried?

Is there a difference and where does it lie between healthy biblical sex and lust?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



 A dose of realism injected into the discussion.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can a married couple have sinful lustful desires towards one another?



So are you saying that a husband is unable to have intense or unrestrained sexual craving or longing towards his wife?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Yes, the bad example of being terrible dancers. Now that would offend me..


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > How can a married couple have sinful lustful desires towards one another?
> ...



I am very able to do this. And biblically warranted I believe.

AS an aside, Here is some humor:

Q: Why are some "christians' against pre-marital sex?
A: They're afraid it might lead to dancing.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Is there a difference and where does it lie between healthy biblical sex and lust?



As far as I can discern from Scripture, marital relations are for reproduction alone. 

Lust would be to have an intense and unrestrained sexual craving towards ones wife.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > How can a married couple have sinful lustful desires towards one another?
> ...



The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife. While it woulc be wrong for a married couple to have sex in public, I do not see how we can categorize sexual desire for a spouse as anything but legitimate.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a difference and where does it lie between healthy biblical sex and lust?
> ...



You can take the Anglican out of the rcc but not the rcc out of the anglican


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 11, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...




Me too.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a difference and where does it lie between healthy biblical sex and lust?
> ...



That is definitely not correct; that is the teaching of Roman Catholicism. Sex is a legitimate pleasure for married couples to enjoy as the writer to the Hebrews tells us "the bed is undefiled".


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a difference and where does it lie between healthy biblical sex and lust?
> ...



So what about all the times that do not result in reproduction? What are they for?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife.



That was a picture of Christ and the Church and I would not say that they were intense sexual desires as such.



Amazing Grace said:


> You can take the Anglican out of the rcc but not the rcc out of the anglican



 And with that I bow out of this discussion.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious
> ...



Richard, you say this as if your opinion is worthy of consideration. I still cannot get past this for some reason. We cannot prevent unbelievers from making fun of us, nor should we try, for according to them, we believe in a foolish message (1 Corinthians 1:18). *Yet we can avoid bringing excess ridicule on ourselves and holding to an unnecessarily extreme and unbiblical morality. If we are ridiculed, let it be because we love Jesus, and not because we love rules taught by men. Dancing is not in itself sinful.*


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife.
> ...



Thank you Richard. I find this belief a terrible witness to others who may lurk this board or are babes in Christ as members.to bind their conscious with such an unbliblical belief and casue them to even rethink the position is terrible. I promise I will never bring it up to you again if you promise not to speak onit either.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife.
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > thunaer said:
> ...



Yes, we are to suffer because of righteousness' sake; not because of our idiosyncratic opinions.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...




I have a few of my own too Daniel. But keep them deeply buried for this reason.


----------



## satz (Feb 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?
> ...



I know you said you have bowed out of the discussion but I wonder if I could ask you to come back to address this.

Since you say you can discern from Scripture that marital relations are for reproduction alone, I hope you would be willing to share the scriptures that lead you to this conclusion.

For my part I do disagree with you, based on these bible reasons.

1) Even if a man can lust after his wife, there is a type of lust that God allows.



> Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
> 
> 1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.



Lust is, as I see it, evil desire. Desire for things we are not allowed, or inordinate desire for things we are allowed. A man can over emphasize or idolatize the sexual aspect of marriage, but I can see no bible proof it is wrong to enjoy it within reasonable bounds, even completely removed from the possibility of procreation.

2) To look at and lust after a woman is to committ a very specific kind of sin - adulterly. The sin is desiring what you cannot ever have (another man's wife). But can a husband sin by committing adultery with his own wife?



> Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.



3) Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 gives us a godly reason to get married - to avoid fornication. In order words in God's eyes one of the proper reasons for marriage is the legitimate fulfillment of sexual desires and enjoyment of sexual pleasure so that the temptation to fornication is reduced. Note that this is the only chapter in the bible that discusses prescriptively the christian's choice whether to marry or not and the reasons for doing so and there is no mention at all of reproduction.



> 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.



4) Paul was not the only one who thought this. Solomon thought that the cure for the strange woman was a fulfillling sexual relationship with your own wife. Note the emphasis on breasts and being ravished, which clearly show it is the pleasureable part of intercourse that is under consideration.



> Proverbs 5:15-20 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?



5) While the main feature a prospective spouse should be measured by is her spiritual character, God himself recognizes that part of what makes a woman an good marriage prospect is good looks. He gave the Israelites laws on how to get beautiful women, and when many of the women whom the Patriarchs ended up marrying were introduced in the bible, they were often commended on their good looks, which shows the legitimacy of enjoying the physical part of marriage. 



> Deuteronomy 21:11-12 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
> 
> Genesis 24:15-16 And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
> 
> ...


----------



## SRoper (Feb 11, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Actually that's not the position of the RCC any more.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2362 'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.' Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: 'The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.'"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 11, 2008)

SRoper said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



True, they held to it in the 19th century. However, the rationale behind such a view is definitely akin to Roman Catholicism


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

satz said:


> Since you say you can discern from Scripture that marital relations are for reproduction alone, I hope you would be willing to share the scriptures that lead you to this conclusion.
> 
> For my part I do disagree with you, based on these bible reasons.



Sure I will answer I just have little time for those who start mud slinging.

Let me preface what I say below by stating my problem clearly. If I walk down the street and see an attractive young woman and my heart burns with lust towards her then that is clearly sinful whether she is single or married. For argument sake let us say she was single. What I have a hard time accepting, is that if we were married then if my heart burned with lust towards her then all is well. 

We can be controlled by our fleshly desires and surely that would be wrong within marriage for as 1 Thessalonians 4:4 states "every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour". On this verse John Gill comments:

Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called, מקדש עצמו, "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus: "though a man's wife is free for him at all times, it is fit and proper for a disciple of a wise man to use himself בקדושה, "in", or "to sanctification".​
Let me also point to two well respected Reformed theologians:

*John Calvin*
Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife. Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour’s chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. (_Institutes_2.8.44)​
Also *John Brown of Haddington*

This commandment [7th] FORBIDS,...immoderate and unseasonable familiarity between married persons, 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4. Heb. xiii.4. Lev. xv.10. xviii. 18. 1 Cor. vii. 5. ("Of the Law of God", _Systematic Theology_ pp. 485)​


satz said:


> A man can over emphasize or idolatize the sexual aspect of marriage, but I can see no bible proof it is wrong to enjoy it within reasonable bounds



This is really what I am saying 



satz said:


> 2) To look at and lust after a woman is to committ a very specific kind of sin - adulterly. The sin is desiring what you cannot ever have (another man's wife). But can a husband sin by committing adultery with his own wife?



I think that lust is more than just desiring what you cannot ever have, not least if she was unmarried in the senario you point to here. If I could "potentially" have her would it still be wrong to lust after her?



satz said:


> 3) Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 gives us a godly reason to get married - to avoid fornication. In order words in God's eyes one of the proper reasons for marriage is the legitimate fulfillment of sexual desires and enjoyment of sexual pleasure so that the temptation to fornication is reduced.



Absolutely, I am in full agreement with you.



satz said:


> 4) Paul was not the only one who thought this. Solomon thought that the cure for the strange woman was a fulfillling sexual relationship with your own wife. Note the emphasis on breasts and being ravished, which clearly show it is the pleasureable part of intercourse that is under consideration.



Marital relations are indeed pleasureable and I am not disagreeing with your argument here as such. But surely you would say that there is the potential for a husband to be controlled by his fleshly desires towards said relations so that that it comes to control him? 



satz said:


> 5) While the main feature a prospective spouse should be measured by is her spiritual character, God himself recognizes that part of what makes a woman an good marriage prospect is good looks.



Beauty is indeed a gift but I am reminded of Luther's blessed marriage which was certainly based not upon good looks. I am convinced that she whom God desires you to marry will be made to appear beautiful in your eyes. We must not be told by the World what beauty is.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It is not desiring to have sex with your own wife.



Daniel, for clarity, I am not saying that to desire to have marital relations with your wife is lustful. That is only natural, what I am speaking of is when that degenerates to the husband being driven by his fleshly desires (&c.) in this area.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > It is not desiring to have sex with your own wife.
> ...



You did say it was only for the purpose of reproduction. That cannot be a Biblical position.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> You did say it was only for the purpose of reproduction. That cannot be a Biblical position.



For what did God design sex? If you wish to maintain that sexual intercourse is for something other than procreation then what is your argument from Scripture? Would you say that birthcontrol is sinful? Why?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > You did say it was only for the purpose of reproduction. That cannot be a Biblical position.
> ...



God designed sex both for pleasure and reproduction. Read what Solomon says in Proverbs, a man's wife's breasts are to satisfy him "at all times" - even when she is beyond the age of giving birth.

Are you saying that people who cannot have children should not get married or have sex in marriage?

The logic of your argument - as I see it - would mean that it is wrong to enjoy having sex.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> God designed sex both for pleasure and reproduction.



I think that we need to differentiate between these two things. Yes it is pleasurable but did God design it for pleasure? It would be a strange God indeed that issued the command to go forth and multiply and who works his covenant through families to make sex painful. That it is pleasurable does not mean it is to used for the pleasure it gives. That is hedonism.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Are you saying that people who cannot have children should not get married or have sex in marriage?



The primary reason for marriage is not sex but companionship. Indeed it is the general rule that all should get married. The man will have natural sexual desires and so they must be taken care of soberly as per 1 Cor 7.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> The logic of your argument - as I see it - would mean that it is wrong to enjoy having sex.



Not at all. I am saying that whilst husbands and wives ought enjoy having sex they ought enjoy it in line with which God designed it. As St. Augustine notes, the bed is defiled "not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure".

As noted above, We can be controlled by our fleshly desires and surely that would be wrong within marriage for as 1 Thessalonians 4:4 states "every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour". On this verse John Gill comments:

Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called, מקדש עצמו, "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus: "though a man's wife is free for him at all times, it is fit and proper for a disciple of a wise man to use himself בקדושה, "in", or "to sanctification".​

*John Calvin*

Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife. Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour’s chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. (_Institutes_ 2.8.44)​


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > God designed sex both for pleasure and reproduction.
> ...



Ole Gus should never be used to promote the biblical truth about sex. He was very wrong on this subject....Perversion in relations is sin, sex for pleasure is not.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 12, 2008)

I know the dancing kerfuffle was a few posts back but I had to add a couple of things: 

First, I'm no moderator, but that Anglican/RCC comment was just not cricket. When discussions descend into _ad hominem_ comments, it is indeed time to bow out, and I think Richard's decision was probably wise at that point. Increase Mather was no Papist, and he would hi-five Richard for many of his comments.

Second, I think that a man and woman dancing with each other _in private_, even in a sexual manner, is OK (and it may be that NO ONE agrees with that, and so be it. You can even throw things at me, no problem.) But I think that we would all say that if we were talking about meat instead of 'mixt' dancing, we would say that those eating meat in the company of weaker brothers should, of course, stop and put it away. Is it not the same with dancing? And are we not talking about dancing in a public sphere?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> I know the dancing kerfuffle was a few posts back but I had to add a couple of things:
> 
> First, I'm no moderator, but that Anglican/RCC comment was just not cricket. When discussions descend into _ad hominem_ comments, it is indeed time to bow out, and I think Richard's decision was probably wise at that point. Increase Mather was no Papist, and he would hi-five Richard for many of his comments.



I do not believe I was wrong making the statement. It was not a blanket condemnation of Richard. To say sex is only to be done for procreation is rc theology. It may not be explicit anymore, yet their views on contracetion lead to this. Here is an example of being more tolerant in a situation becasue Richard or anyone we consider 'one of us' vs "them" ie Hageeites. Why should the blow come with a feather on an error of one who has more light vs one who has not? I cannot understand this.


----------



## satz (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Sure I will answer I just have little time for those who start mud slinging.



Hi Richard,

Thanks for your answer.

I guess in response to what you have asked here, I would first say there is a difference between ‘burning in lust’ and appreciation of beauty. The former is sin, the latter is not. To appreciate the beauty of another woman is no more a sin against the seventh commandment than to appreciate the beauty of your neighbour’s house is a sin against the tenth. It is when admiring turns into covetousness, that sin occurs. 



> Let me preface what I say below by stating my problem clearly. If I walk down the street and see an attractive young woman and my heart burns with lust towards her then that is clearly sinful whether she is single or married. For argument sake let us say she was single. What I have a hard time accepting, is that if we were married then if my heart burned with lust towards her then all is well.



You have to define what exactly is the sin of ‘burning in lust’. Do you mean strong sexual desire? I do not believe that is a sin if a man feels that toward his wife, or vice versa. Above, I drew a connection between covetousness and lust. By the tenth commandment it is a sin to covet your neighbour’s goods. That is because those are not yours. But it is no sin for your neighbour to use his own goods. The same applies between men and women. It is wrong to covet another man’s wife, or a woman you are not married to, because she is out of bounds to you, sexually. But that is not true between spouses.

I would add to, that there is lusting and coveting that God allows. I quoted Deut 14:26, 1 Cor 12:31 and 1 Cor 14:39 above. Strong desire is not always wrong. It just depends what you are desiring.



> I think that lust is more than just desiring what you cannot ever have, not least if she was unmarried in the senario you point to here. If I could "potentially" have her would it still be wrong to lust after her?



I said lust was evil, or unlawful desire. Either wanting what you cannot ever have (sinful things) or inordinate desire for what is not in itself sinful. If you could ‘potentially’ have her it is still wrong to lust after her in the sense of mental sexual fantasies. However, if you have strong desire for an attractive single woman, that is not necessarily wrong. God in the law gave the Israelites a procedure to go get such a woman (Deut 21:11-12). There is no inherent sin in desiring a beautiful woman you see on the street… if it was her looks that started the attraction take some steps to check out her spiritual character and take it from there.

And of course, if her character turns out to be unsatisfactory (as it probably will, if you just picked someone off the street), be ready to cut things off.




> We can be controlled by our fleshly desires and surely that would be wrong within marriage for as 1 Thessalonians 4:4 states "every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour". On this verse John Gill comments:



That said, I have to say I don’t think you quite answered my question. You claimed that marital relations are for reproduction alone, and I asked you to prove the bible proof, but you have only come up with 1 Thess 4:4. I don’t see how this verse proves your point.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-4 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, *that ye should abstain from fornication:* That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

The context of possessing our vessel is clearly with regards to avoiding fornication. Even if there was a way for a marriedcouple to commit unclean acts in the marriage bed, this verse says nothing about it.


----------



## satz (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> For what did God design sex? If you wish to maintain that sexual intercourse is for something other than procreation then what is your argument from Scripture? Would you say that birthcontrol is sinful? Why?



Hi, (again)

Since you asked the question, why don't you answer it? Where are the scriptures that prove that God designed sex either solely, or even predominantly for procreation?



> I think that we need to differentiate between these two things. Yes it is pleasurable but did God design it for pleasure? It would be a strange God indeed that issued the command to go forth and multiply and who works his covenant through families to make sex painful.



In my first post on this thread I gave several verses that commended the pleasurable aspect of sex. I believe these are more than sufficient to show that pleasure is a God designed purpose for sex, and legitimate even when seperate from procreation. While I am open to correction, I do believe that at least half or close to that figure of the positive mentions of sex in the bible have to do with pleasure and not procreation.



> That it is pleasurable does not mean it is to used for the pleasure it gives. That is hedonism.



Perhaps I am on thin ice with this in our pleasure-mad generation, but I do not believe the bible teaches that it is wrong to use something purely for the pleasure it gives. Again, the onus is on you, as the one making this statement to show the scriptural proofs.

_Psalms 104:14-15 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart._

God's sole purpose in creating wine was to make something that would gladden men's hearts. The sole, or primary purpose of wine consumption is for the pleasure it gives when used moderately.

_Proverbs 24:13 My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste:_

This proverb is, of course, merely an introduction to a larger lesson about wisdom, but there is a general principle thought here - it is ok to eat something simply because it tastes good, and brings pleasure.

_2 Timothy 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;_

It is no sin to seek after or desire pleasure. The sin is when pleasure is loved more than God.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 12, 2008)

Re: RC belief


> It may not be explicit anymore, yet their [RC] views on contraception lead to this.



I know many in the Reformed camp who think sex can be enjoyed for pleasure _while_ attempts are made at procreating but who abhor the idea of birth control. They would see that as stating a claim that the Lord no longer opens and closes the womb in His sovereignty; we are taking the controls in an area where He cannot. 

Are _they_ all RC stooges as well? If so, I know some Reformed pastors about to be defrocked.

My real problem with the previous comment was the dismissive tone in which it was delivered, and the follow up to it, publicly admonishing him for his poor witness to those looking on. A PM would be a far more appropriate channel for that sort of comment, were it actually necessary. And are we not to take the brother aside and slowly teach him from scripture where he erred if he has, instead of calling him a Christian Pharisee and throw him in with that lot?

I may not agree with you (and could probably find differences with Richard quite easily - on this very issue), but I have signed up on the board agreeing to certain confessions, etc., as has Richard and the rest of us. There are no RC sympathizers among us and such a comment was unwarranted at best, _that_ is my point.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious
> ...


Yeah, this is what is going through my head when I am dancing with 50 and 60 yr. old women at my West Coast Swing class.


----------



## Gloria (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong for a man to dance with his wife?
> ...



Wow.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Re: RC belief
> 
> 
> > It may not be explicit anymore, yet their [RC] views on contraception lead to this.
> ...








I disagree. Why do we not take Hagee or Olsteen et al aside and gently rebuke them? There were many posts that did just as you said prior to my comment. It again is not a blanket statement that him or others are rc sympathizers as you suggest. Luther himself kept some of the same traditions also and was admonished for them, who am I or anyone else that feels immune to such statements? I know EXACTLY what your point is. That one of "us" should be treated with kid gloves, while 'them' are to be destroyed with severity, and that Kevin I find wrong. Was Paul wrong to rebuke Peter in public?

If I said to you that I will nto eat with them becasue they will defile me, what would you call me? I would expect to be called a judaizer.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 12, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> I do not believe I was wrong making the statement. It was not a blanket condemnation of Richard. To say sex is only to be done for procreation is rc theology. It may not be explicit anymore, yet their views on contracetion lead to this.



That isn't the RCC position. Please see my above post. To say that sex should always be open to procreation does not mean that there aren't other reasons to have sex. If I say eating is about nutrition I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy what you eat or you shouldn't eat for enjoyment.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 12, 2008)

Cheshire Cat said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > thunaer said:
> ...



I've danced with girls under the age of ten. I wonder what that makes me.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

satz said:


> That said, I have to say I don’t think you quite answered my question. You claimed that marital relations are for reproduction alone, and I asked you to prove the bible proof, but you have only come up with 1 Thess 4:4. I don’t see how this verse proves your point.



It does indeed seem I put down what I wanted to say but failled to deal with that  

The point regarding 1 Thess 4:4 is that John Gill notes that it is possible to abuse the marital bed with ones wife and other Reformed writers (Calvin and John Brown) agreed.

As for marital relations being for procreation we can do no better than going back to the beginnings:

*Genesis 1:27, 28* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

May I suggest a reading of James Durham's exposition of the Seventh Commandment in his _Law Unsealed_ pages 321-323 found here.

But men sin more and oftener in the excess, _viz_. by carnal living with their own lawful married wives, and using marriage for lust, living in the lust of concupiscence, as the apostle calleth it; and that as the Gentiles did even in their marriage-stations, 1 Thess. 4. 5. And he calleth it, Col. 3. 5. inordinate affection; an affection which a man hath to his wife as to a whore, rather than, what becometh a wife; These things, when reproved, must not be offended at, but the Lord looked unto for the purging of this corrupt nature of such fithiness as is shameful even to mention.​


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2008)

Richard, I was going to suggest that you moderate your "passion" for your views until such time as you have a wife. 

Few things can make a man reconsider his youthful quirky "convictions" like a godly wife. They have this mysterious ability to smooth out our rough edges!

However having read this entire thread I would advise you to avoid marriage until God has revealed himself to you in such a way that you can appreciate the oneness in marriage (they were both naked and not ashamed) that is designed to reflect Christs love for the church & his PASSIONATE DESIRE for her.

I know that the temptations of youth are strong, and a desire to avoid sin can cause such tension that men often become intemperate. Please remember that intemperance is not only exhibited in yeilding to the lust of the flesh. Sometimes it is exhibited in the pride of life as well.

God bless brother, I am praying for you.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

SRoper said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe I was wrong making the statement. It was not a blanket condemnation of Richard. To say sex is only to be done for procreation is rc theology. It may not be explicit anymore, yet their views on contracetion lead to this.
> ...



Sroper, as I said not explicitly:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.


2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

I found this article:

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 12, 2008)

> I think that we need to differentiate between these two things. Yes it is pleasurable but did God design it for pleasure? It would be a strange God indeed that issued the command to go forth and multiply and who works his covenant through families to make sex painful. That it is pleasurable does not mean it is to used for the pleasure it gives. That is hedonism.



Richard God is not against human beings having pleasure; the dichotomoy you are making is ridiculous - we are allowed to derive pleasure from sex, but we are not allowed to have sex for the pleasure it brings? "God has given us all things richly to enjoy." What exactly is wrong with a married Christian couple having sex for the pleasure it brings them?

This thread reminds me of the dangerous influence which Greek philosophy has had on the Christian faith. I suggest everyone read R.J. Rushdoony's _The Flight From Humanity _ASAP.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Richard God is not against human beings having pleasure; the dichotomoy you are making is ridiculous - we are allowed to derive pleasure from sex, but we are not allowed to have sex for the pleasure it brings? "God has given us all things richly to enjoy." What exactly is wrong with a married Christian couple having sex for the pleasure it brings them?



When I read responses such as this I fear that I have been less than clear. All I am saying is summed up by these:

*James Durham*
"But men sin more and oftener in the excess, viz. by carnal living with their own lawful married wives, and using marriage for lust, living in the lust of concupiscence, as the apostle calleth it; and that as the Gentiles did even in their marriage-stations, 1 Thess. 4. 5. And he calleth it, Col. 3. 5. inordinate affection; an affection which a man hath to his wife as to a whore, rather than, what becometh a wife; These things, when reproved, must not be offended at, but the Lord looked unto for the purging of this corrupt nature of such fithiness as is shameful even to mention."

*John Calvin*
Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife. Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit...And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. (_Institutes_ 2.8.44)

*John Gill*
Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called, מקדש עצמו, "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus: "though a man's wife is free for him at all times, it is fit and proper for a disciple of a wise man to use himself בקדושה, "in", or "to sanctification".

*John Brown*
This commandment [7th] FORBIDS,...immoderate and unseasonable familiarity between married persons, 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4. Heb. xiii.4. Lev. xv.10. xviii. 18. 1 Cor. vii. 5. ("Of the Law of God", Systematic Theology pp. 485)


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Kevin said:


> I am praying for you.



Earnestly coveted I can assure you


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2008)

Augustine actually argues in the _Enchiridion_ (at least it reads that way in translation) that even within marriage for the purpose of procreation sex is a sin, although a trivial one. 

That perspective, of course, is untenable. I find it equally untenable to say that sex is only excusable or permissible with the express desire of having children. Apart from the practical questions it raises, it does tend to leave the Song of Solomon rather out of the reckoning (saying it is about Christ and the Church, which I believe, incidentally, does not eliminate the fact that it uses frank and vivid sexual imagery, and the desire for procreation does not seem to enter into it --ot at least is not dominant).


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Augustine actually argues in the _Enchiridion_ (at least it reads that way in translation) that even within marriage for the purpose of procreation sex is a sin, although a trivial one.
> 
> That perspective, of course, is untenable. I find it equally untenable to say that sex is only excusable or permissible with the express desire of having children. Apart from the practical questions it raises, it does tend to leave the Song of Solomon rather out of the reckoning (saying it is about Christ and the Church, which I believe, incidentally, does not eliminate the fact that it uses frank and vivid sexual imagery, and the desire for procreation does not seem to enter into it --ot at least is not dominant).



I think that St. Augustine is wrong on a lot of what he says on this issue but surely it is possible for a husband to abuse that which is lawful re: relations with his wife as Durham notes?

"But men sin more and oftener in the excess, viz. by carnal living with their own lawful married wives, and using marriage for lust, living in the lust of concupiscence, as the apostle calleth it; and that as the Gentiles did even in their marriage-stations, 1 Thess. 4. 5. And he calleth it, Col. 3. 5. inordinate affection; an affection which a man hath to his wife as to a whore, rather than, what becometh a wife; These things, when reproved, must not be offended at, but the Lord looked unto for the purging of this corrupt nature of such fithiness as is shameful even to mention."​
*FYI: taken from Book of Common Prayer, "The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony"*

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.​


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> But why bring these up when no one here has even hinted or implied that a Christian man could lawfully or should "use" his wife _merely_ for sexual pleasure (or vice versa)?



The reason stems from the question regarding dancing. I stated that I felt it would be wrong for a married couple to dance because there would be the very real danger that it may cause the husband to view his wife in terms unfitting and cause him to live a lust driven life as opposed to a chaste one. 

It could enflame the lusts of the husband and so give rise to "intemperate and unrestrained indulgence" (Calvin).


----------



## Storm (Feb 12, 2008)

Wow! John Calvin NEVER would have used as many emoticons as Presbyterian Deacon did!!!!

That's just WAY too much merriment!!!


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > But why bring these up when no one here has even hinted or implied that a Christian man could lawfully or should "use" his wife _merely_ for sexual pleasure (or vice versa)?
> ...



WOuld this be like saying:

I cannot describe p0rnography, but I know it when I see it? Richard, keeping this PG13 if possible, how does one _view his wife in terms unfitting and cause him to live a lust driven life as opposed to a chaste one._ Perhaps if you could be specific and connect dancing to it, I may understand more of what you are saying. 

We must also readily admit that some should not be the barometer of pleasure on either end of the spectrum. I do not want the heathens who practiced shrine prostitution defining sexual relations ie molech/Ashtoreth worshipers, neither do I want Gus/ Calvin/Gill/Amish/puritans defining the marraige bed and how dancing could lead to unnatural desires towards the spouse ie ROmans 1


----------



## Augusta (Feb 12, 2008)

Exagorazo said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Exagorazo said:
> ...



I just wanted to point out that the adjective lascivious _does _apply to all of the rest of the nouns in the sentence, as Vaughn mentioned. Therefore only lascivious songs, lascivious books, lascivious pictures, lascivious dancing, and lascivious stage plays are not allowed. 

Yes, I am aware that that rules out most secular books, movies, and songs. Not all dancing is lascivious In my humble opinion. The subject is the 7th commandment so the sensuality of a thing is in view.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> I cannot describe p0rnography, but I know it when I see it? Richard, keeping this PG13 if possible, how does one _view his wife in terms unfitting and cause him to live a lust driven life as opposed to a chaste one._ Perhaps if you could be specific and connect dancing to it, I may understand more of what you are saying.



Oh I shall keep this at




you can be sure.

It is difficult to describe and I think I would simply redirect you to these. I will try to think of some good examples. 

Would you not agree that there is a danger that sex could control a husband and become an idol in some form?

I think that it is implied in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 that it is possible to commit fornication [of some sort] within marital relations.

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:"


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> As can a multitude of other things...things which aren't _inherently_ evil.



Could you spell out what you mean. I don't quite follow.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> What I'm saying is that almost anything has the _potential_ of being an idol. This doesn't mean we avoid all things at all costs. One has the potential to be controlled by anything. It doesn't make said thing evil to be enjoyed universally.



Thanks, yes I agree. What I wanted to point out was that whilst marital relations can be highly pleasurable and chaste there is also the potential for this good gift of sex to be abused by the husband.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm saying is that almost anything has the _potential_ of being an idol. This doesn't mean we avoid all things at all costs. One has the potential to be controlled by anything. It doesn't make said thing evil to be enjoyed universally.
> ...



Remeber Richard all truths by God are perverted into something they never meant to teach. When Paul states it is good to remain unmarried, that does not mean it is bad to get married. Scripture does not always speak in opposites equally true.

Again, to speak of dancing as immoral, any dancing, is going into the realm of man made interpretations binding the conscious of NC believers. I will again repeat this is what the talmud does. "DOnt do business on the sabbath, turned into, it is sinful to carry money on the sabbath" Then turned into how much money was considered business. It never ends when one becomes legalistic about anything.. 

Now I must go do the tango with my wife.... And LOVE IT


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Augustine actually argues in the _Enchiridion_ (at least it reads that way in translation) that even within marriage for the purpose of procreation sex is a sin, although a trivial one.
> ...



Can husbands and wives sin within marriage? Of course. There are many ways to do so, and no doubt some husbands (and some wives) are guilty at times of treating their spouses like whores. That is utterly wrong, and very sad. The television has probably made all of us uncomfortably familiar with many different ways that this could be played out. But, there is nonetheless a difference between acknowledging that, and saying that sex must be for procreation or it is sinful (or if you are Augustine, that it is sinful anyway).


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife.



At no point do we read that the relationship described between the man/men and woman in the Song of Solomon was a married relationship. Even if it were, it describes a very turbulent one. But clearly the Song of Solomon was written as an allegory. Appealing to it for guidance in sexual relations would be like appealing to the parable of the unjust steward in order to establish normative business practice.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 12, 2008)

Man, the things that happen while you're asleep...



> I know EXACTLY what your point is. That one of "us" should be treated with kid gloves, while 'them' are to be destroyed with severity, and that Kevin I find wrong. Was Paul wrong to rebuke Peter in public?



That is by no means EXACTLY what my point is. The thing is, that 'they' have been approached by many and counselled in their error (in a fashion, Osteen was counselled thus by no less a theological pillar than Larry King - he was, I am sure, not the first, nor even the thousandth.) But still they cling to their heresy. And while in this case, here and now, we are talking about a point of doctrine, in 'their' case we are talking about the very concept of Christ, salvation, the place of scripture in our lives. Were 'they' members of a congregation within, for instance, the PCA, they likewise would have been counselled in their error by the elders and then excommunicated when they still held to God as a big piggy bank and scripture as unnecessary but 'nice' (as in Osteen's case). 



> To say that sex should always be open to procreation does not mean that there aren't other reasons to have sex.



My motivation to get intimate with my wife may not be to _specifically_ procreate, but I should not attempt to restrain the blessings of His hand. I don't look at my wife with a twinkle in my eye and say, "Hey honey, let's procreate." But likewise should I not endeavour to exercise _my_ sovereignty over _her_ womb - I should submit to _His_ will at all times in regards to this issue.



> Thanks, yes I agree. What I wanted to point out was that whilst marital relations can be highly pleasurable and chaste there is also the potential for this good gift of sex to be abused by the husband.



Yes, we must remain vigilant. I think that it _is_ possible to objectify one's wife to the point that she becomes a tool for selfish sexual pleasure and to lust after her in a way that is not honorable or appropriate. It is the _how_ of that that is the bone of contention here (I think). 

Where is the line? Even clothed like the Amish, the scent of your wife's covered hair and a particular turn of her wrist while she kneads the family's bread could cause you to want to 'procreate' with her with great urgency. Is this inappropriate lust? I don't think so, but there _is_ a line and it is not so far as stretch as we might think.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 12, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The man in the Song of Solomon had extremely intense sexual desires toward his wife.
> ...




I believe it is both and Matthew. There are too many erotic double entendre's to explicitly speak of an allegory only.. I see it more of a typology than allegory.


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> I believe it is both and Matthew. There are too many erotic double entendre's to explicitly speak of an allegory only.. I see it more of a typology than allegory.



It can't be both. The relationship described is turbulent and shaky. It is in no sense a pattern of Christian marriage. Commentators can't even agree as to whether there is one lover or two. At the very least, even if there is only one lover, the woman is part of a harem. There is nothing normative about this story so far as a loving, stable relationship between man and wife is concerned.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 12, 2008)

In light of Mr. Winzer's remarks I would like to retract the use of Song of Solomon as evidence. I submit instead Genesis 18:12 and as an ancillary witness the case of Hannah.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Feb 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > I believe it is both and Matthew. There are too many erotic double entendre's to explicitly speak of an allegory only.. I see it more of a typology than allegory.
> ...



WHo says the norm is loving and stable in marriage? Are you married matthew? Again Solomon wrote this and how can he who had 1000 partners be the norm of what one constitutes the monogamous marriage bond? It cannot be denied that one must alegorize to the extreme with the clear, non allegorical, sexual conotations in this Song. I agree it is not just about man and wife.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Considering that he has twelve children, I think we can safely say he is a happily married man!


----------



## MW (Feb 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Considering that he has twelve children, I think we can safely say he is a happily married man!


----------



## DeaconHardwick (Feb 13, 2008)

John Calvin, saint that he was, is not the last reference for these matters. God's Word is. What does the Bible say? 1 Peter 2:11 


> Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.


Now, if the dance in question inspires lust, it's a sin, doesn't matter whether it's a Texas two-step or a tango. I don't think it's a coincidence that most men who take up dancing for a profession are also homosexuals.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 13, 2008)

DeaconHardwick said:


> John Calvin, saint that he was, is not the last reference for these matters. God's Word is. What does the Bible say? 1 Peter 2:11
> 
> 
> > Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.
> ...



?????

Men who dance (with their wives?!?!)are doing so because of latent homosexual tendancies?

This entire "dancing = lust" line of argument is hard for me to understand. The only thing I can think is that none of y'all have ever been to a dance. If you are making you assumptions about dancing based on what you see on MTV, then all I can say is; "turn off the TV & get out more with real people!"

We just held our 7th annual homeschool winter fancy dress ball here. The whole idea that families dancing together (all ages, moms & grandmothers down to 5 & 6 year olds). Doing traditional English Country dances & Southern Reels, as well as an occasional jig (this is the Maritimes!). Is "lust" is simply bizzare.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 14, 2008)

Kevin said:


> This entire "dancing = lust" line of argument is hard for me to understand. The only thing I can think is that none of y'all have ever been to a dance.



There is a clear testimony of witnessess from the Early Church Fathers through the Reformers to the Puritans and others including J. C. Ryle who all warned against dancing and the dangers it can do to the soul. James Durham condemned all forms of dancing and was correct to do so. And yes, I have been dancing in the past, much to my deep regret.

As this discussion is going nowhere, I will finish with Watson on the seventh commandment:

Take heed of mixed dancing. _Instrumenta luxuriae tripudia_ [Dances are instruments of wantonness]. From dancing, people come to dalliance with another, and from dalliance to uncleanness. ‘There is,’ says Calvin, ‘for the most part, some unchaste behaviour in dancing.’ Dances draw the heart to folly by wanton gestures, by unchaste touches, and by lustful looks. Chrysostom inveighed against mixed dancing in his time. ‘We read,’ he says, ‘of a marriage feast, and of virgins going before with lamps, but of dancing there we read not.’ Matt 25: 7. Many have been ensnared by dancing; as the duke of Normandy, and others. _Saltatio adadulteras non ad pudicas pertinet_ [Dancing is the province not of the chaste woman, but of the adulteress]. Ambrose. Chrysostom says, where dancing is, there the devil is. I speak chiefly of mixed dancing. We read of dances in Scripture, but they were sober and modest. Exod 15: 20. They were not mixed dances, but pious and religious, being usually accompanied with singing praises to God.​
And of course some Scripture:

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (*1 John 2:15, 16*)​


----------



## Coram Deo (Feb 14, 2008)

Chrysostom also believed that it was effeminate for a man to shave his face along with some of the other early church fathers who taught that. Must all men be bearded...... I respect the early church fathers and give them more of my time to consider an issue when they have something to say but they are not infallible... 

AV1611, I respect your view.. I disagree with it but I respect it.. I know others in my own family who have similar views and I try not to cause strife over it. In their eyes, It is Sin and so it is to them. 

The true matter at hand is Lust and whether or not one can dance without lust or wantonness. I am the last person on here that want to encourage lust and a lack of modesty. As some know of me on here I am one who even believes that hair on a woman is extremely lustful and if uncovered, it is immodest. I find legs to be lustful and those who cover not to be immodest (Even the calf of the leg). So I am not against modesty or one who does not want to put away lust or wantonness. I find certain types of music as lustful and pornographic (Rock music) and I will not listen to those types of music. But I find it hard to put all dancing as lustful. Yes, certain types of dancing is lustful but not all. Just like certain types of music is lustful and a christian should not listen to so to a christian should abstain from certain dancing types.

Do I take my liberty and dance, not really... I am not really a dancing type of person. (I got no rhythm)  






AV1611 said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > This entire "dancing = lust" line of argument is hard for me to understand. The only thing I can think is that none of y'all have ever been to a dance.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2008)

> James Durham condemned all forms of dancing and was correct to do so.



The position that _*all*_ forms of dancing are sinful is simply not Biblical. I suspect the reason why you can find quotes from the church fathers, Reformers, and Puritans [note that Watson does not even go this far] to this effect is due to the influence of Greek philosophy on the Christian faith. Yes, there are many forms of dancing which are sinful, but no man can come to the word of God and honestly say that all dancing of every variety is sinful. 

While I respect your right to abstain from such activities if you are not convinced they are appropriate, it must be remembered that there are "doubtful things" in the Christian life (Rom. 14:1). BTW I have never done any dancing, and have no desire to do so in the future.

Quoting 1 John 2:15-16 is unconvincing as you have not explained what relevance that text has to the point you are making. I have heard this text used to argued that people should not enjoy sports as well! While it is true that we should not worship sports the way the world does, there is nothing in Scripture to forbid deriving pleasure from sporting events in moderation.


----------



## Coram Deo (Feb 14, 2008)

Now can we please talk about what is really lustful and wanton: Makeup and Certain Grooming practices.....


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 14, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The position that _*all*_ forms of dancing are sinful is simply not Biblical. I suspect the reason why you can find quotes from the church fathers, Reformers, and Puritans [note that Watson does not even go this far] to this effect is due to the influence of Greek philosophy on the Christian faith. Yes, there are many forms of dancing which are sinful, but no man can come to the word of God and honestly say that all dancing of every variety is sinful.



Ok, "all" was too strong as I did not mean all dancing of every variety is sinful. David dancing before the Ark was not sinful nor was it sinful for the damsels to dance in Exodus 15 but such occurences do not justify what is being here defended by others. 

As for James Durham being influenced negatively by Greek philosophy, well may I suggest a read of pages 326-333 of Durham's _The Law Unsealed_. 

*J. C. Ryle*:

Concerning "dancing" (or going to Balls), I only ask Christians to judge the amusement by its tendencies and accomplishments. To say there is anything morally wrong in the mere bodily act of dancing would be absurd. David danced before the ark. Solomon said, "There is a time to dance" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). Just as it is natural to lambs and kittens to frisk about, so it seems natural to young people, all over the world, to jump about to a lively tune of music. If dancing were taken up for mere exercise, if dancing took place at early hours, and men only danced with men, and women with women, it would be needless and absurd to object to it. But everybody knows that this is not what is meant by modern dancing (going to Balls and dances). This is an amusement which involves very late hours, extravagant dressing, and an immense amount of frivolity, vanity, jealousy, unhealthy excitement, and vain conversation. Who would like to be found in a modern dance-hall when the Lord Jesus Christ comes the second time? Who that has taken much part in balls and dancing, as I myself once did before I knew better, can deny that they have a most dissipating effect on the mind, like using drugs and the drinking of alcoholic beverages does on the body? I cannot withhold my opinion that dancing and the going to balls is one of those worldly amusements which "war against the soul," and which it is wisest and best to give up.​
You raised exegesis on 1 John 2:15-16, well here is John Gill:

*Love not the world,....* The habitable earth, the world in which men live; this is not to be loved by saints, as if it was their habitation, where they are always to be, and so loath to remove from it, seeing they are but sojourners, and pilgrims, and strangers here; this is not their rest, nor dwellingplace, their continuing city, or proper country, that is heaven. Nor should they love the men of the world, who are as they came into it, are of it, and mind the things of it, and lie in wickedness, and are wicked men; for though these are to be loved, as men, as fellow creatures, and their good, both spiritual and temporal, is to be sought, and good is to be done to them, as much as lies in our power, both with respect to soul and body; yet their company is not to be chosen, and preferred to the saints, but to be shunned and avoided, as disagreeable and dangerous; their evil conversation, and wicked communications, are not to be loved, but abhorred, and their works of darkness are to be reproved; nor are their ways to be imitated, and their customs followed, or their manners to be conformed unto:
*
neither the things [that are] in the world;* good men that are in the world, though they are not of the world, are to be loved; and the kingdom of Christ, though it is not of the world, yet it is in the world, and is to be regarded and promoted to the uttermost; and there are the natural and civil things of the world, called this world's goods, which may be loved within due bounds, and used in a proper manner, though they are not to be loved inordinately and abused. This is the character of worldly men. Near relations and friends in the world, and the blessings of life, may be loved and enjoyed in their way, but not above God and Christ, or so as to take up satisfaction and contentment in them, to make idols of them, and put trust and confidence in them, and prefer them to spiritual and heavenly things, and be so taken with them, as to be unconcerned for, and careless about the other; but the evil things of the world, or at least the evil use of them, and affection for them, are here intended, as appears from the following verse. Now it is chiefly with respect to the fathers, and young men, that this exhortation is given; and the repetition of what is said to them before is made, to introduce this; which is exceeding suitable to their age and characters. Old men are apt to be covetous, and love the world and worldly things, just when they are going out of it, and about to leave them; and young men are apt to be carried away with lust, vanity, ambition, and pride: and therefore, from each of these, the apostle dissuades, from the following arguments,

*if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; *that is, "the love of God", as the Alexandrian copy and the Ethiopic version read; who is the Father of Christ, and of all the elect in him...

*For all that [is] in the world,....* This is the sum of the evil things in the world; or these following are the objects of sin in the world, or about which wicked men are conversant; even such as are carnal or grateful to the flesh, visible to the eye, and belong to this vain life, or serve to fill with pride and vanity; or these are the main things, which men that love the world most highly value and esteem:

*the lust of the flesh;* by which is meant, not lust in general, or concupiscence, the corruption of nature, which is the fountain of all sin, or indwelling sin, the flesh, or that corrupt principle which lusts against the Spirit; nor the various lusts of the flesh, fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, and which are many, and are also called worldly lusts; but some particular one, "a lust of the body", as the Syriac version reads; either the lust of uncleanness, which includes all unchaste desires, thoughts, words, and actions, fornication, adultery, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; and which make up a considerable part of the all that is in the world: or else intemperance in eating and drinking, gluttony and drunkenness, excess of wine, surfeitings, rioting, and revellings, and all the sensual pleasures of life, by which the carnal mind, and the lusts of it, are gratified; whereby the soul is destroyed, the body is dishonoured, and a wound, dishonour, and reproach brought on the character, not to be removed; for which reasons the world, and the things of it, are not to be loved: the next follows,

*the lust of the eyes:* after unlawful objects, and may design unchaste and lascivious looks, eyes full of adultery, and whereby adultery is committed; but then this falls in with the other, unless that be confined to intemperance; rather then this may intend a sinful curiosity of seeing vain sights, and shows, with which the eye of man is never satisfied, Ec 1:8; and against which the psalmist prays, Ps 119:37, or rather the sin of covetousness is here designed, the objects of which are visible things, as gold, silver, houses, lands, and possessions, with which riches the eyes of men are never satisfied, and which sin is drawn forth and cherished by the eyes; and indeed a covetous man has little more satisfaction than the beholding his substance with his eyes, and in which he takes much sinful pleasure; and what a poor vain empty thing is this! therefore, love not the world, since this is a principal thing in it: as is also

*the pride of life;* by which seems to be meant, ambition of honour, of chief places and high titles, as in the Scribes and Pharisees, Mt 23:6, or of grand living, for the word signifies not so much life as living; living in a sumptuous, gay, luxurious, and pompous manner, in rich diet, costly apparel, having fine seats, palaces, and stately buildings, and numerous attendance; all which is but vanity and vexation of spirit. Now neither of these

*is of the Father;* of God the Father, as the Ethiopic version reads; the things which are desired and lusted after are of God, but not the lust itself; God is not the author of sin, nor is it agreeable to his will:

*but is of the world;* of the men of it, and agreeable to their carnal minds; and is a reason why things of the world are not to be loved by the saints, who are not of it, but chosen and called out of it; and besides, all these things are mean, base, vile, and contemptible, and unworthy of their love and affection.​
*Matthew Henry*

*2. *From the prohibition of worldly love or lust; it is not ordained of God: It is not of the Father, but is of the world, v. 16. This love or lust is not appointed of God (he calls us from it), but it intrudes itself from the world; the world is a usurper of our affection. Now here we have the due consideration and notion of the world, according to which it is to be crucified and renounced. The world, physically considered, is good, and is to be admired as the work of God and a glass in which his perfections shine; but it is to be considered in its relation to us now in our corrupted state, and as it works upon our weakness and instigates and inflames our vile affections. There is great affinity and alliance between this world and the flesh, and this world intrudes and encroaches upon the flesh, and thereby makes a party against God. The things of the world therefore are distinguished into three classes, according to the three predominant inclinations of depraved nature; as, *(1.)* There is the lust of the flesh. The flesh here, being distinguished from the eyes and the life, imports the body. The lust of the flesh is, subjectively, the humour and appetite of indulging fleshly pleasures; and, objectively, all those things that excite and inflame the pleasures of the flesh. This lust is usually called luxury. *(2.)* There is the lust of the eyes. The eyes are delighted with treasures; riches and rich possessions are craved by an extravagant eye; this is the lust of covetousness. *3.* There is the pride of life. A vain mind craves all the grandeur, equipage, and pomp of a vain-glorious life; this is ambition, and thirst after honour and applause. This is, in part, the disease of the ear; it must be flattered with admiration and praise. The objects of these appetites must be abandoned and renounced; as they engage and engross the affection and desire, they are not of the Father, but of the world, v. 16. The Father disallows them, and the world should keep them to itself. The lust or appetite to these things must be mortified and subdued; and so the indulging of it is not appointed by the Father, but is insinuated by the ensnaring world.​
I think that dancing falls under all three; "lust of the flesh", "lust of the eyes" and "the pride of life". 

Now that really must be my last post. 

See also: Topical Sermons - Shall We Dance?

And:

To be read in the Churches, by order of the General Presbytery of the Church.

The basis of Christian behaviour is Christian belief.

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. As a man believes so he behaves. His ethics are based on his theology. The Bible emphasises the unbreakable link between Doctrine and Discipline.

The Christian is called to holy living because of holy believing. God is his Lord, and the doing of the Lord's will is his delight.

God is holy, and demands holiness from His people. Holiness is not conformity to the traditions of men, but to the tests of God. His revealed commandments are the standard to which we must bow, and the rule by which we must walk. Psalm 1.

The true Christian must shun anything which works against God's holy standards. He puts off the works of the flesh. Galatians 5:19-21.
Those that do so bear the fruit of the Spirit. Galatians 5:22. The true Christian crucifies the flesh. Galatians 5:23.

The dancing of the world, hugging the other sex, set to music, is sensual and clearly caters to the lust of the flesh.

At ordination, all the ministers of the Free Presbyterian Church vow to denounce dancing, drinking, gambling, and the crazes of the present evil world.

Line dancing and other worldly practices are now freely indulged in by professing Christians at wedding receptions and other social occasions.

Line dancing is as sinful as any other type of dancing, with its sexual gestures and touchings. It is sensual, and not a crucifying of lust but an excitement to lust.

No Christian who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit should engage in it. It aids and abets fleshly lusts which war against the soul.

The Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and those who defile it God will destroy.

As a Presbytery, we warn our members of the sinfulness of such dancing performances and exhort them not to participate in such practices.

As the God Who has called us is holy, so let us all be holy, obeying His call to separation from this present evil world. We should not touch the unclean things of a corrupted world, but we should make a clear distinction between the clean and the unclean.(Burning Bush - Free Presbyterian Church condemns Line dancing as sinful)​


----------



## Ravens (Feb 14, 2008)

Rev. David Silversides has a very helpful sermon relative to the "sidebar discussion" that was going on regarding the interpretation of the Song of Solomon. It can be found here:

Interpreting the Song of Solomon

I know, I'll go ahead and rebuke myself:


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 14, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> Rev. David Silversides has a very helpful sermon relative to the "sidebar discussion" that was going on regarding the interpretation of the Song of Solomon. It can be found here:
> 
> Interpreting the Song of Solomon
> 
> I know, I'll go ahead and rebuke myself:



A welcome offtopic  Does he defend the correct view? (allegorical _as per_ Durham and Gill)


----------



## Ravens (Feb 14, 2008)

Yes, Rev. Silversides advocates the allegorical nature of the Song.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2008)

> I think that dancing falls under all three; "lust of the flesh", "lust of the eyes" and "the pride of life".



Lust provoking dancing does, the question of whether or not all dancing falls into this category is another question.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. David Silversides has a very helpful sermon relative to the "sidebar discussion" that was going on regarding the interpretation of the Song of Solomon. It can be found here:
> ...





JDWiseman said:


> Yes, Rev. Silversides advocates the allegorical nature of the Song.



For the alternative view see Gary Brady's _Heavenly Love _(published by Evangelical Press) or read Doug Wilson's excellent book _Fidelity: What It Means to be a one-woman man_.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2008)

> As for James Durham being influenced negatively by Greek philosophy, well may I suggest a read of pages 326-333 of Durham's The Law Unsealed.



Don't worry that is one of my favourite books (I hope Chris Coldwell is reading). However, if you do not think that the Reformers and Puritans were negatively influenced by Greek philosophy, then tell me where Calvin got his ideas for a near messianic state from (see his commentary on Isaiah 49:23)? Plato's _Republic_ perhaps? Also, why did Harvard and Yale - both founded by the Puritans - rapidly become humanistic institutions? Ideas have consequences.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 14, 2008)

> Also, why did Harvard and Yale - both founded by the Puritans - rapidly become humanistic institutions?



Liberalism (the Half-way Compromise as a symptom of a greater cancer), increasing affluence, pollution by the world, you name it... 

"Ideas have consequences," especially when you give them greater gravity than they deserve. I am not going to use the Bible to classify all birds, fish, and mammals. But though I may use and accept Aristotle's classification of the animal world, that does not mean that I think his logic is the be-all and end-all (or is even significant in any respect) in every area of life. But some do, and therein lies the beginnings of the end, as they rush forward to apply humanist thinking to more than they should.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 15, 2008)

As an addendum to my post above, I just heard Mike Horton say on an episode of the White Horse Inn that Yale and Harvard went down the tubes due to their adoption of Arminianism He did not expand on it, but it sounds correct to me...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 16, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> As an addendum to my post above, I just heard Mike Horton say on an episode of the White Horse Inn that Yale and Harvard went down the tubes due to their adoption of Arminianism He did not expand on it, but it sounds correct to me...



As far as I am aware that is correct. When Harvard went Arminian, they founded Yale - which later became Arminian. Of course Arminianism is just a humanistic view of salvation, the logical outworking of teaching human autonomy in other areas.


----------

