Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Sports and Dancing
- Thread starter Simply_Nikki
- Start date
- Status
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.
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Junior
You can take the Anglican out of the rcc but not the rcc out of the anglican
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Senior
So what about all the times that do not result in reproduction? What are they for?
That was a picture of Christ and the Church and I would not say that they were intense sexual desires as such.
And with that I bow out of this discussion.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
That was a picture of Christ and the Church and I would not say that they were intense sexual desires as such.
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
Cancelled Commissioner
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
That was a picture of Christ and the Church and I would not say that they were intense sexual desires as such.
Ole Solomon should know, how many partners did he have?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
Yes, we are to suffer because of righteousness' sake; not because of our idiosyncratic opinions.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
That was a picture of Christ and the Church and I would not say that they were intense sexual desires as such.
Ole Solomon should know, how many partners did he have?
About 1000. Not sure how he coped.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
This is where we would have to disagree.
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.
Yes, we are to suffer because of righteousness' sake; not because of our idiosyncratic opinions.
I have a few of my own too Daniel. But keep them deeply buried for this reason.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Cancelled Commissioner
True, they held to it in the 19th century. However, the rationale behind such a view is definitely akin to Roman Catholicism
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. (Institutes2.8.44)
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)
This is really what I am saying
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?
Absolutely, I am in full agreement with you.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Re: RC belief
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.
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.
- Status
