Is Sexuality Temporary?

[bookslover]

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]

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. . .

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Btw, here is my stated gender on facebook.

 

[RamistThomist]

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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

What's wrong with pooping in heaven?

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ben Chomp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

I imagine we will still need manure in heaven.

What's the key word in that sentence?

 

[Ben Chomp]

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]

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.

"Manure"

Imagine. The key word was "imagine."

 

[bookslover]

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!

 

[Ben Chomp]

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]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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.