Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Sports and Dancing
- Thread starter Simply_Nikki
- Start date
- Status
Gloria
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Wow.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
I've danced with girls under the age of ten. I wonder what that makes me.
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."
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
Last edited:
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
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)
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).
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.
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.
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).
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Do you believe that the Westminster Divines were thought that all books were forbidden by the seventh commandment?
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...
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.
Last edited:
Oh I shall keep this at
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:"
Could you spell out what you mean. I don't quite follow.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
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).
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Man, the things that happen while you're asleep...
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
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.- Status
