# Is Sexuality Temporary?



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

God created sexuality. In the beginning he made them male and female. And sexuality has a very important purpose and meaning in God's plan. Sexuality first advances God's plan through marriage and child-rearing. But it also provides one of the greatest living pictures we have of the gospel in marriage (Ephesians 5).

As a sexual being, you are either a man or a woman. This identity is one of your most foundational identities such that it is difficult to imagine being *you* apart from your sexuality. But is our sexuality a permanent part of our identity or only temporary? I don't know the answer to this question, but there are a few things that make me suspect that our sexuality might be temporary:

1. The meaning of sexuality and marriage is to teach us about Christ in this age. Now that Christ has come, marriage is already less necessary and it is okay to live as a single person (1 Corinthians 7). In the fullness of time marriage will become just as obsolete as the OT temple.

2. Jesus says that marriage is only for this age. In the age to come, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. I suspect this might mean that we also will not enjoy sexual activity. This furthermore could mean that we will no longer be sexual beings.

3. Paul teaches that in Christ there is no male and female. Certainly we remain sexual beings in this age after we become Christians and sexual distinctions still matter. Men are called to be leaders in the home and in the church. But our identity as Christians goes deeper than our identity as men and women such that Paul can say that we are a Christian before we are a man or woman and there is some kind of radical equality going on in Christ. This could mean that in glory we will no longer need these sexual identities.

What are your thoughts? To my shame, I've not read any good theologians on this topic though I am sure that someone has written something on it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

We have sex in heaven.....

(crickets)


.....meaning, we have sexual identity in heaven. While I wouldn't overload a parable with theological meaning, but I think Jesus uses masculine pronouns about the rich man and Lazarus.

Anyway, there will be national identities and kingdoms and tribes in heaven, so probably sexual identities (only two of them) as well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> I suspect this might mean that we also will not enjoy sexual activity. This furthermore could mean that we will no longer be sexual beings.



Two totally different things. One doesn't follow from the other. Celibates don't have sexual activity but they are sexed beings.

This is part of the problem of thinking gender and sex are the same thing. They aren't. Sex refers to male/female. Gender refers to language.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Anyway, there will be national identities and kingdoms and tribes in heaven, so probably sexual identities (only two of them) as well.



I was thinking even ten years ago you wouldn't have had to put in that parenthetical. Now it is a must.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We have sex in heaven.....
> 
> (crickets)
> 
> ...



How much exegetical certainty do you have about this? Do you base it solely on that parable?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Two totally different things. One doesn't follow from the other. Celibates don't have sexual activity but they are sexed beings.



True. Celibate people are still sexual beings. But when marriage and reproduction go away (assuming that they will go away in heaven), then what would be the purpose of continuing as a sexual being?



> This is part of the problem of thinking gender and sex are the same thing. They aren't. Sex refers to male/female. Gender refers to language.



I have not and will not use the word "gender" in this discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> How much exegetical certainty do you have about this? Do you base it solely on that parable?



I can turn it around: where do you see that we are no longer sexed beings? That's the burden of proof. "No longer male and female" actually applies now, but no one thinks that we aren't really biologically different.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> But when marriage and reproduction go away (assuming that they will go away in heaven), then what would be the purpose of continuing as a sexual being?



I don't know. If God thought they were going to go away as well, he would have told us.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can turn it around: where do you see that we are no longer sexed beings? That's the burden of proof. "No longer male and female" actually applies now, but no one thinks that we aren't really biologically different.



I suspect that this may be the case since people no longer marry in heaven but are like the angels. As far as I know, the angels are not sexual beings. I don't have much exegetical certainty on this, but I do have my suspicions.

Another reason is the role that sex plays in redemptive history. It makes sense that the trajectory would be toward not being sexual beings in glory. But, again, that's very speculative.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know. If God thought they were going to go away as well, he would have told us.



Perhaps he did.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

Another thing to mention is that sex has meaning in this age. When people marry they must marry a person of the opposite sex. And men are called to a position of responsibility and leadership.

But I'm not sure that this same meaning will be relevant in heaven. We will no longer have marriage because we have the fulfillment of marriage in Christ. We will no longer reproduce because we will have eternal life and we will have filled creation and subdued it. I'm not sure that male headship will still be relevant in glory apart from the headship of Christ.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "No longer male and female" actually applies now, but no one thinks that we aren't really biologically different.



I think it applies in an already/not yet, Ridderbosian sense. Paul says to married folks that they ought to live as though they are unmarried now (1 Corinthians 7). This is obviously in an already/not yet sense. We shouldn't abandon our wives. But we should also realize that marriage is temporary and not ultimate.

"No longer male and female" is already true in the sense that we have a radical equality in salvation and we are all sons of God through Christ Jesus. But it may not yet be fully fulfilled because we still must live as men and women in this age that is passing away.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> But it may not yet be fully fulfilled because we still must live as men and women in this age that is passing away.



That's what needs to be proven, not assumed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Perhaps he did.



I'm all ears (assuming they, too, won't pass away)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> As far as I know, the angels are not sexual beings. I don't have much exegetical certainty on this, but I do have my suspicions.



That's a weak foundation upon which to build a rather starting theological conclusion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Will Jesus be male in heaven?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what needs to be proven, not assumed.



I'm not assuming anything. I think that there are hints either way and I don't have a certain answer.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Will Jesus be male in heaven?



I would have to affirm that he will, although with marriage, sex, and reproduction out of the picture, I'm not sure what it will mean to be male or female in heaven.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's a weak foundation upon which to build a rather starting theological conclusion.



Yes I would not arrive at a firm conclusion on this question. Not yet anyway.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm all ears (assuming they, too, won't pass away)



I've already stated the rationale behind my suspicions in the OP. These were obviously not provocative for you.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

Hah!

Interestingly, Peter Kreeft takes the position that not only will there be sex in heaven, but there will be sexual activity in heaven. He agrees that there will not be child rearing or marriage in heaven, but says there will be sexual activity between the saints in a non-monogamous way.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/article-is-there-sex-in-heaven/


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

What's biblically clear:

1. No marriage in heaven
2. No child rearing in heaven

What's biblically unclear (to me, at least):

1. Will there be sex in heaven (men and women)?
2. Will there be sexual activity in heaven?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> I've already stated the rationale behind my suspicions in the OP. These were obviously not provocative for you.


 They weren't because they were assumptions that were yet to be proved.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> I would have to affirm that he will, although with marriage, sex, and reproduction out of the picture, I'm not sure what it will mean to be male or female in heaven.


What does it mean to be male or female to those who don't marry, have sex, or reproduce here and now?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They weren't because they were assumptions that were yet to be proved.



They are not assumptions. They are facts of Scripture (Jesus really did say that there would be no marriage in heaven) combined with some tentative suspicions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> What's biblically clear:
> 
> 1. No marriage in heaven
> 2. No child rearing in heaven



Strictly speaking, the verse only says they won't marry or be given in marriage. It doesn't say anything about previous marriages. I won't press that point too hard, though, since the previous married life/lives didn't seem to be that important to Jesus in the parable.


Ben Chomp said:


> 1. Will there be sex in heaven (men and women)?



Jesus still has his human nature in heaven (orthodox Christology demands this). So presumably he still has male organs (not trying to be crude, but Jesus in his humanity is still identified as a male in heaven).


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> What does it mean to be male or female to those who don't marry, have sex, or reproduce here and now?



It means that they are biologically able to do these things and that they are called to play certain roles in this age. Will male headship still be relevant in heaven?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> They are facts of Scripture (Jesus really did say that there would be no marriage in heaven)



No one disputes that.


Ben Chomp said:


> combined with some tentative suspicions



That's what remains to be proven.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what remains to be proven.



Well duh!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Will male headship still be relevant in heaven?



I think a better rephrasing of the question is under hierarchy, not headship (and if the Facebook group "Geneva Commons" saw me saying this, I would probably get banned for anti-Wilsonite content). There will be hierarchy, as we will rule nations and judge angels.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think a better rephrasing of the question is under hierarchy, not headship (and if the Facebook group "Geneva Commons" saw me saying this, I would probably get banned for anti-Wilsonite content). There will be hierarchy, as we will rule nations and judge angels.



Hmm. We will judge the nations and angels, but at a certain point all that gets wrapped up, right? They only need to be judged once. Then Jesus will hand the kingdom to the Father once every enemy has been defeated.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Hmm. We will judge the nations and angels, but at a certain point all that gets wrapped up, right? They only need to be judged once. Then Jesus will hand the kingdom to the Father once every enemy has been defeated.



Maybe. Maybe not. I was just pointing out that hierarchy plays a more fundamental role than Male-headship.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. I was just pointing out that hierarchy plays a more fundamental role than Male-headship.



I'm fine with that. But beyond all the judgment business, I don't see a strong case for a continuing hierarchy among God's people in glory.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 24, 2019)

We are raised with the self-same bodies. Why doesn't that clinch the argument?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> I'm fine with that. But beyond all the judgment business, I don't see a strong case for a continuing hierarchy among God's people in glory.



Maybe there isn't, but either way doesn't change the debate about whether all males will have their organs chopped off the moment they get to heaven.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> We are raised with the self-same bodies. Why doesn't that clinch the argument?



It does

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> It means that they are biologically able to do these things and that they are called to play certain roles in this age. Will male headship still be relevant in heaven?


Not all of them are biologically able to reproduce, yet it still means something to say they are male or female. Are eunuchs "gender neutral?"

I'm with Jacob--there is a huge burden of proof for the one who asserts that sex is abolished in heaven. If it cannot be proven, there's no reason to think it will change (unless someone's ideology demands it).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Consider a woman's breasts (sorry, there is no not-awkward way to write that). Even in OT times they had an intimacy dimension, yet strictly speaking they aren't sexual organs. So presumably that would identify sex in the eschaton. Unless they, also, get chopped off.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe there isn't, but either way doesn't change the debate about whether all males will have their organs chopped off the moment they get to heaven.



Our sexual organs are more than just the visible flesh. We've also got organs that produce semen and eggs. Will they continue to do this in glory? Will women continue to menstruate?

You can see how these are complex questions.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Strictly speaking, the verse only says they won't marry or be given in marriage. It doesn't say anything about previous marriages. I won't press that point too hard, though, since the previous married life/lives didn't seem to be that important to Jesus in the parable.



Jesus wasn't telling a parable when he gave his answer about marriage in glory.

Whose wife will she be, then, since the seven had her?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> We are raised with the self-same bodies. Why doesn't that clinch the argument?



It might. But it also introduces complex questions like the ones raised in this thread.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Our sexual organs are more than just the visible flesh. We've also got organs that produce semen and eggs. Will they continue to do this in glory? Will women continue to menstruate?
> 
> You can see how these are complex questions.


I don't see why someone would want to pry into mysteries like this. God hasn't spoken, and it has no bearing on how we live now. Why not be content with what God has revealed?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> I don't see why someone would want to pry into mysteries like this. God hasn't spoken, and it has no bearing on how we live now. Why not be content with what God has revealed?



I'm very content with what God has revealed and feel no great need to know the answers to these questions. I do, however, think that they are interesting questions and I believe it might be possible to learn more from Scripture about them than we currently understand. If answers can be found, they might have some relevance to our current crisis with sexuality we're experiencing in our culture.

Can't a theologian be a little curious?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> If answers can be found, they might have some relevance to our current crisis with sexuality we're experiencing in our culture.



What crisis?

"God hath shewed thee, O man, what is good."

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all."


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> What crisis?



There's an upheaval going on in American popular thought right now concerning sex and gender.



> "God hath shewed thee, O man, what is good."
> 
> "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all."



Amen!


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> There's an upheaval going on in American popular thought right now concerning sex and gender.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!


The upheaval is because they have rejected what is revealed, not because we haven't understood enough of it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> The upheaval is because they have rejected what is revealed, not because we haven't understood enough of it.



Heresies in the church and culture historically tend to motivate the people of God to return the Scriptures and think more deeply about how to respond to fresh (although not altogether new) heresies. This results in a deeper understanding of Scripture among the orthodox. Maybe this cultural moment is another opportunity for growth in understanding God's word.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Heresies in the church and culture historically tend to motivate the people of God to return the Scriptures and think more deeply about how to respond to fresh (although not altogether new) heresies. This results in a deeper understanding of Scripture among the orthodox. Maybe this cultural moment is another opportunity for growth in understanding God's word.


If they have rejected what is plain on the face of the Scriptures, how can speculation on obscure eschatological mysteries be expected to change their minds? The moral questions related to this "crisis" are closed issues, as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jun 24, 2019)

Regarding the idea mentioned earlier that heaven could be non-monogamous, that's a perverse idea. How could we imagine that God's law, being perfect, when humanity has been perfected, could be substituted for anything else, much less something so vile?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> Regarding the idea mentioned earlier that heaven could be non-monogamous, that's a perverse idea. How could we imagine that God's law, being perfect, when humanity has been perfected, could be substituted for anything else, much less something so vile?



I don't know because I didn't read Kreeft's whole presentation. I just read his punch lines. If you're interested, I would read his paper.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> If they have rejected what is plain on the face of the Scriptures, how can speculation on obscure eschatological mysteries be expected to change their minds? The moral questions related to this "crisis" are closed issues, as far as the Scriptures are concerned.



I don't believe that this is an opportunity to change anyone's mind. Rather, it is an opportunity for the church to study Scripture freshly to gain a better understanding of these issues and how to pastorally respond to them. That's what's being debated at the PCA GA right this very moment.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> I don't believe that this is an opportunity to change anyone's mind. Rather, it is an opportunity for the church to study Scripture freshly to gain a better understanding of these issues and how to pastorally respond to them. That's what's being debated at the PCA GA right this very moment.


A large part of what is going on at the PCA GA would be resolved if the Reformed doctrine of concupiscence were embraced by the denomination as a whole. What is at stake is not merely a pastoral issue, but fundamental principles regarding the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of depravity, and sexual ethics.

It's not for me to judge the PCA, but the discussion goes much deeper than the question of how to pastor someone who is attracted to his own sex.

Again, the solution is found in embracing the things our forefathers have already worked out from the plain meaning of the Scriptures, not in speculation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> A large part of what is going on at the PCA GA would be resolved if the Reformed doctrine of concupiscence were embraced by the denomination as a whole. What is at stake is not merely a pastoral issue, but fundamental principles regarding the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of depravity, and sexual ethics.
> 
> It's not for me to judge the PCA, but the discussion goes much deeper than the question of how to pastor someone who is attracted to his own sex.
> 
> Again, the solution is found in embracing the things our forefathers have already worked out from the plain meaning of the Scriptures, not in speculation.



I don't know that anything fruitful would come from my line of questioning. I just think that there could be interesting possibilities. I don't ask because I'm trying to solve the pastoral issue for gender-dysphoria people. I ask mainly because I think it's an interesting question.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Jesus still has his human nature in heaven (orthodox Christology demands this). So presumably he still has male organs (not trying to be crude, but Jesus in his humanity is still identified as a male in heaven).



So here is an interesting bit.

You've said here that being a sexual creature is essential to being human. A human is essentially a male or a female. If a person is neither male nor female, they are not a human being.

This would mean that sexuality is not temporary, but permanent and essential to our humanity. Assuming this is so, this has very interesting implications for the current gender debates. Don't you think?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> This would mean that sexuality is not temporary, but permanent and essential to our humanity. Assuming this is so, this has very interesting implications for the current gender debates. Don't you think?



Probably, though I would be careful in saying either "maleness" or "femaleness" is an essential property of being human. Since, per some Greeks, that would make women less than human.

I guess you could turn it around and say that "being sexed" is an essential property.

Yes, it's relevant to the current debate. The globalist masters openly attack universals and essence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Probably, though I would be careful in saying either "maleness" or "femaleness" is an essential property of being human. Since, per some Greeks, that would make women less than human.
> 
> I guess you could turn it around and say that "being sexed" is an essential property.
> 
> Yes, it's relevant to the current debate. The globalist masters openly attack universals and essence.



In a sermon I'm not sure I would say that being sexed is essential to being human. I'm inclined to think that you're correct, but I don't have enough exegetical certainty about that to say it from the pulpit. I would however say that God has created each person either male or female and that this has great significance and responsibility in this age. It is ignored to our peril.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> but I don't have enough exegetical certainty about that to say it from the pulpit.



The exegesis is there and the Christian tradition has been pretty consistent on it. Genesis 1:27 ff. Image of God. Male and female. Not sure what else you need.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The exegesis is there and the Christian tradition has been pretty consistent on it. Genesis 1:27 ff. Image of God. Male and female. Not sure what else you need.



I think I would need Scriptures that clearly show that we keep our sexuality in glory. Maybe there's something in the apocalyptic literature to this end.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

On a related note - will my children be my children in glory? Do those relationships cross over?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

I suppose we would have to maintain those relationships in some way because being begotten is essential to our humanity. Our bodies are connected to each other by generation. If that connection disappears, then our humanity is called into question.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> How much exegetical certainty do you have about this? Do you base it solely on that parable?



Peter Kreeft, the Roman Catholic philosopher who has taught at Boston College since 1965, once opined that, while he acknowledged that there is no marriage in heaven, he is "cautiously optimistic" that there will be sex in heaven. As far as I know, he provided no argumentation for that belief.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe there isn't, but either way doesn't change the debate about whether all males will have their organs chopped off the moment they get to heaven.



Now, there's a picture. . .

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

And we need to be clear on the distinction between capacities and the actualization of those capacities.

I can have a male sexual organ that has the capacities for procreation without actually procreating. 

I can have a stomach that has the capacity for digestion without actually digesting anything.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

Still more thoughts...

In glory, humanity will be complete and mature, fully developed in the stature and fullness of Christ. All of our begetting gets done here on earth and there is no need to beget in heaven because the human race is complete with Christ at its head. But those connections made on earth are still real.


bookslover said:


> Peter Kreeft, the Roman Catholic philosopher who has taught at Boston College since 1965, once opined that, while he acknowledged that there is no marriage in heaven, he is "cautiously optimistic" that there will be sex in heaven. As far as I know, he provided no argumentation for that belief.



His argument is linked in in this thread. It's very lengthy.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And we need to be clear on the distinction between capacities and the actualization of those capacities.
> 
> I can have a male sexual organ that has the capacities for procreation without actually procreating.
> 
> I can have a stomach that has the capacity for digestion without actually digesting anything.



This kind of thing boggles the mind and shows me the limitations of our inquiries into heaven. Will we have immune systems, for example?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> This kind of thing boggles the mind and shows me the limitations of our inquiries into heaven



Not really. The distinction between capacity and actuality is basic to a proper anthropology (and, For what it's worth, a pro-life ethic). My mind has the capacity to learn Russian but not the actuality.

Let's take an analogy from the pro-life front. 

Capacities come in hierarchies. 1st order hierarchy: a capacity that is realized. 2nd order: capability faculty: a faculty is a compartment of the soul (or in our current discussion, the body) that contains a natural family of related capacities. The key word here is “capacities.” Fetuses and those on life-support have the latent capacity for the later functions of personhood. What all this means is, contra to any form of naturalism, the soul is an essence that survives change. It cannot be reduced to a form of different functions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Btw, here is my stated gender on facebook.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)



Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Hah!
> 
> Interestingly, Peter Kreeft takes the position that not only will there be sex in heaven, but there will be sexual activity in heaven. He agrees that there will not be child rearing or marriage in heaven, but says there will be sexual activity between the saints in a non-monogamous way.
> 
> https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/article-is-there-sex-in-heaven/



Very weird. Kreeft is off his rocker. 

He says: 
"In the most important and obvious sense there is certainly sex in Heaven simply because there are human beings in Heaven. As we have seen, sexuality, like race and unlike clothes, is an essential aspect of our identity, spiritual as well as physical. Even if sex were not spiritual, there would be sex in Heaven because of the resurrection of the body. The body is not a mistake to be unmade or a prison cell to be freed from, but a divine work of art designed to show forth the soul as the soul is to show forth God, in splendor and glory and overflow of generous superfluity.

But is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? If we have bodily sex organs, what do we use them for there?"

Under his rationale we also need to poop in heaven because we still retain our orifices in our resurrected bodies.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Under his rationale we also need to poop in heaven because we still retain our orifices in our resurrected bodies.



Exactly. That's the point I made in the distinction between capacity and actualizing that capacity.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly. That's the point I made in the distinction between capacity and actualizing that capacity.



What's wrong with pooping in heaven?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> What's wrong with pooping in heaven?



I think Adam and Eve might not have defecated prior to the fall, but would have perfectly utilized 100% of their food and had it all absorbed by their bodies. I also think we will eat in heaven but will be like pre-Fall Adam with regard to our elimination.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> What's wrong with pooping in heaven?



Strictly speaking, I didn't say anything was (although in the Torah God warns against having messy camps because "the Lord is in your midst"). Most Christians, though, sort of think we won't be eating in heaven because "the kingdom of God is not food and drink," which means we won't need our digestive systems.

My point, regardless, was that there is a distinction between a capacity and the actualizing of that capacity.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I think Adam and Eve might not have defecated prior to the fall, but would have perfectly utilized 100% of their food and had it all absorbed by their bodies. I also think we will eat in heaven but will be like pre-Fall Adam with regard to our elimination.



In the words of the Dude: "Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Strictly speaking, I didn't say anything was (although in the Torah God warns against having messy camps because "the Lord is in your midst"). Most Christians, though, sort of think we won't be eating in heaven because "the kingdom of God is not food and drink," which means we won't need our digestive systems.
> 
> My point, regardless, was that there is a distinction between a capacity and the actualizing of that capacity.



But there's so much Scripture about feasting in heaven and the mountains dripping with sweet wine. Jesus ate and drank with his disciples in his resurrection body. And Paul's words about the kingdom of God not being a matter of food and drink have nothing to do contextually with this question.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> But there's so much Scripture about feasting in heaven and the mountains dripping with sweet wine. Jesus ate and drank with his disciples in his resurrection body. And Paul's words about the kingdom of God not being a matter of food and drink have nothing to do contextually with this question.



I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven - Matthew 8:11.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> A large part of what is going on at the PCA GA would be resolved if the Reformed doctrine of concupiscence were embraced by the denomination as a whole. What is at stake is not merely a pastoral issue, but fundamental principles regarding the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of depravity, and sexual ethics.



This is interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean by concupiscence and why you think that this is not universally accepted in the PCA?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> This is interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean by concupiscence and why you think that this is not universally accepted in the PCA?



The corruption of our whole nature is included under original sin, which makes it a sin. Therefore, desiring another man's love while not acting upon it, would fall under sin in this category.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> But there's so much Scripture about feasting in heaven and the mountains dripping with sweet wine. Jesus ate and drank with his disciples in his resurrection body. And Paul's words about the kingdom of God not being a matter of food and drink have nothing to do contextually with this question.



I understand that. But we are back to square one: show me the Scripture verses about defecating in heaven.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The corruption of our whole nature is included under original sin, which makes it a sin. Therefore, desiring another man's love while not acting upon it, would fall under sin in this category.



This is clearly taught in the Westminster Standards. I am not aware that people in the PCA take issue with it.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I understand that. But we are back to square one: show me the Scripture verses about defecating in heaven.



I think you might be hoisted by your own petard there. The burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why we would cease defecating since this seems to be a perfectly natural part of our digestive system and also part of our planet's ecology. I imagine we will still need manure in heaven.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> This is interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean by concupiscence and why you think that this is not universally accepted in the PCA?


The Reformed doctrine (as opposed to the RC doctrine) of concupisence teaches that the inclination toward, or attraction to, sin is itself sinful. Those within and without the PCA who teach that homosexual attraction is not sinful in and of itself are out of step with this doctrine.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> The Reformed doctrine (as opposed to the RC doctrine) of concupisence teaches that the inclination toward, or attraction to, sin is itself sinful. Those within and without the PCA who teach that homosexual attraction is not sinful in and of itself are out of step with this doctrine.



Ah okay thanks. I agree with you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> The burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why we would cease defecating since this seems to be a perfectly natural part of our digestive system and also part of our planet's ecology.



I am not the one who opened the thread with what you admitted was speculation.



Ben Chomp said:


> I imagine we will still need manure in heaven.



What's the key word in that sentence?


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not the one who opened the thread with what you admitted was speculation.



I was speculating about our sexuality ceasing and you rightly showed me that these speculations were not well grounded.

Now you are suggesting that we won't poop in heaven and I'm trying to say that this is equally (if not more) ungrounded.



> What's the key word in that sentence?


"Manure"


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Now you are suggesting that we won't poop in heaven and I'm trying to say that this is equally (if not more) ungrounded.



Admittedly, I am undecided on that point since it is an utterly irrelevant point. The key point to be made, though, is the distinction between capacity and actualization, which does turn the question in the OP.

Will there be toilets in heaven? Or will it be clean on the ground? Presumably there won't be any bacteria, so even if we do defecate it won't be exactly the same. Will there be toilet paper? See where I am going with all of this? It's why it is a fruitless question and any answer raises a host of similar implications.


Ben Chomp said:


> "Manure"



Imagine. The key word was "imagine."


----------



## bookslover (Jun 25, 2019)

Now consulting all the systematic theologies. I wonder if Berkhof or Vos has anything to say about pooping in heaven?

Sex in heaven? Pooping in heaven?

What I want to be assured of is that the air-conditioning will _always_ be in good repair!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Admittedly, I am undecided on that point since it is an utterly irrelevant point. The key point to be made, though, is the distinction between capacity and actualization, which does turn the question in the OP.
> 
> Will there be toilets in heaven? Or will it be clean on the ground? Presumably there won't be any bacteria, so even if we do defecate it won't be exactly the same. Will there be toilet paper? See where I am going with all of this? It's why it is a fruitless question and any answer raises a host of similar implications.



Life on earth wouldn't work without bacteria. I wouldn't presume that there is no bacteria in heaven. But it will no longer be hostile to us.



> Imagine. The key word was "imagine."



It's good to have a little imagination.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

Believe it or not, these kinds of questions come up when I preach on the resurrection of the body.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Believe it or not, these kinds of questions come up when I preach on the resurrection of the body.



They are natural questions, but in 1 Cor 15 Paul firmly put a lid on such questions. It is a spiritual body that has discernible sexed features. That's the outer limit of any speculation.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Life on earth wouldn't work without bacteria. I wouldn't presume that there is no bacteria in heaven. But it will no longer be hostile to us.
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to have a little imagination.



You mentioned the ecology of our natural world (which involves decomposition fertilizing new life) and also our digestion (which involves bacteria breaking down food, another form of death and decomposition), but heaven does not work like this and there will be no death (and therefore, no decomposition or rotting). This is no problem since 
"the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp." 

So we should not expect nature to work in the same way in heaven since it is not "nature" at all, but the supernatural world of heaven. 

I do affirm that we will retain our personal identities and memories in heaven and thus we will still be male and female, just as Jesus is still male in heaven. We will remember our wives and children and even worship God together and know that we were spouses or parents on earth. We are not hit by a heavenly amnesia. While Adam and Eve started out naked and not ashamed, I think we will have glorified bodies and be clothes in white robes or clothes of some kind. We will retain our physical features. 

Of course, I am not sure how this works for ugly people, since I don't think ugliness will be in heaven. And yet we will be the same people in heaven and identifiable.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They are natural questions, but in 1 Cor 15 Paul firmly put a lid on such questions. It is a spiritual body that has discernible sexed features. That's the outer limit of any speculation.



The 1 Corinthians 15 passage is an interesting one. Paul does seem to put a lid on speculation but he also says that the body we inhabit is a seed form of the body we will inherit.

There is continuity between the seed and the blooming flower, but the flower is a fully realized and perfected form of the seed. Maybe that's all we can say.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You mentioned the ecology of our natural world (which involves decomposition fertilizing new life) and also our digestion (which involves bacteria breaking down food, another form of death and decomposition), but heaven does not work like this and there will be no death (and therefore, no decomposition or rotting). This is no problem since
> "the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp."
> 
> So we should not expect nature to work in the same way in heaven since it is not "nature" at all, but the supernatural world of heaven.
> ...



Since the human race is united by generation, I don't see how this could go away without destroying the unity of the human race. Humanity is not a collection of unrelated individuals like the angels are. Rather, we are related to one another in a great big family tree. While we will no longer have children in heaven, I do believe that the family tree will remain. My children and I might still share the same DNA!


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Since the human race is united by generation, I don't see how this could go away without destroying the unity of the human race. Humanity is not a collection of unrelated individuals like the angels are. Rather, we are related to one another in a great big family tree. While we will no longer have children in heaven, I do believe that the family tree will remain. My children and I might still share the same DNA!



Yes, you will still know them as your children in heaven. You won't forget nor be unmindful of what their relationship to you was. We retain our identities in heaven.

Even murderers who have repented will worship next to their victims in heaven, and all will be okay in light of God's grace (they'll see it all in the context of God's grand story of grace and rejoice...they won't have their memories wiped of these events).


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, you will still know them as your children in heaven. You won't forget nor be unmindful of what their relationship to you was. We retain our identities in heaven.
> 
> Even murderers who have repented will worship next to their victims in heaven, and all will be okay in light of God's grace (they'll see it all in the context of God's grand story of grace and rejoice...they won't have their memories wiped of these events).



Glory!


----------



## Alexander Suarez (Jun 25, 2019)

Ben Chomp said:


> Can't a theologian be a little curious?



I think Calvin's comments on 2 Cor. 12:3-4 are worth meditating on. See below.

2 Cor. 12.3-4:

"And I knew such a man, ( whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."​
Calvin:

"From this, too, we may gather a most useful admonition as to setting bounds to knowledge. We are naturally prone to curiosity. Hence, neglecting altogether, or tasting but slightly, and carelessly, doctrine that tends to edification, we are hurried on to frivolous questions. Then there follow upon this — boldness and rashness, so that we do not hesitate to decide on matters unknown, and concealed.

From these two sources has sprung up a great part of scholastic theology, and every thing, which that trifler Dionysius has been so daring as to contrive in reference to the Heavenly Hierarchies, It becomes us so much the more to keep within bounds, so as not to seek to know any thing, but what the Lord has seen it good to reveal to his Church. Let this be the limit of our knowledge."​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Bavinck said that miracles on earth are nature in heaven.


----------



## Ben Chomp (Jun 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Bavinck said that miracles on earth are nature in heaven.



Love it! The miracles don't seem to be making people super-human, though. They seem to be restoring fallen, miserable humanity to a state of health.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 25, 2019)

I hope this isn't a stupid question/observation, and I've at least skimmed this thread, in its entirety, but if we are married to the Lamb, and there is no other marriage in heaven, how can there be sex ? Wouldn't that be fornication if there is no marriage and no procreation ?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 25, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> I hope this isn't a stupid question/observation, and I've at least skimmed this thread, in its entirety, but if we are married to the Lamb, and there is no other marriage in heaven, how can there be sex ? Wouldn't that be fornication if there is no marriage and no procreation ?


Most the times that we've spoken of people having sex on this thread, we mean having the property of sex (i.e., being male or female).

There are a few exceptions to that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

