Purity culture

Status
Not open for further replies.

My Pilgrim Way

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes. God can redeem the greatest of sinners.

And yes, a thrice-divorced lady who ran around in between those marriages can also find a man and live a happy life afterwards. But again, this is not who I would marry nor advise my sons to marry. Call me judgmental if you will. But some men and women are more marriageable than others, and I suppose such a woman needs somebody less critical than I am because it's a hard pass from me. Personality faults and sins are often ingrained.

But I would not marry a "Come back Barbara" no matter how her life has been reformed. I know my reply will probably spark anger in some, and that is okay. I am sure there is a perfect "Come back Bob" somewhere out there to fit her needs.
You are certainly entitled to your personal convictions, but as a minister of the Lord, is this the impression you want to leave with your sisters in Christ (or brothers) that they are somehow not as marriageable or damaged goods? Does not the Lord determine our time and habitation, whether or not we have godly or wicked parents?

These are the same women whom the Lord Jesus Christ shed His own blood and takes them for His bride. He makes fit, adorns, and lavishes His love upon His bride. The marriage supper will be made of redeemed sinners that were wholly defiled by sin, broken, unacceptable, and spiritual harlots before clothed with the righteousness of Christ. He came to save the sick and the lost.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
You are certainly entitled to your personal convictions, but as a minister of the Lord, is this the impression you want to leave with your sisters in Christ (or brothers) that they are somehow not as marriageable or damaged goods? Does not the Lord determine our time and habitation, whether or not we have godly or wicked parents?

These are the same women whom the Lord Jesus Christ shed His own blood and takes them for His bride. He makes fit, adorns, and lavishes His love upon His bride. The marriage supper will be made of redeemed sinners that were wholly defiled by sin, broken, unacceptable, and spiritual harlots before clothed with the righteousness of Christ. He came to save the sick and the lost.
Anybody can be saved.

But, if you had a daughter, would you want them to marry, as their first choice: 1. An ex-con convicted on a murder count , but now out on parole. 2. An ex-junkie who has battled meth for 15 years. 3. A man who 3 previous marriages and a large monthly obligation for child support?

Or would you prefer them to marry a doctor or bank president or engineer with no criminal record?

I will double-down here. The Lord can and does save all sorts of people. We have former cannibals baptized in our tribe. But not all people are equally desirable as spouses.

A "Come Back Barbara" may get saved, and may even find a happy marriage eventually. But they are certainly not first on the list of desired spouses.

Yes, all believers are precious to the Lord, and the Lord will forgive us all of our sins. But there are temporal and life-long effects of the sins that we do, and consequences. Some of those long-term effects can alter our health or our marriageability.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Re: women and modest dress not tempting their brethren...

I agree absolutely that men need to control their thoughts. They are completely responsible.

Still though, is there something wrong with encouraging women to dress modestly to help their brethren, and also to glorify their Lord? Is this somehow misogynistic? Why can’t this be a “both and” rather than an “either or”?
 

My Pilgrim Way

Puritan Board Freshman
I will double-down here. But not all people are equally desirable as spouses.

Yes, all believers are precious to the Lord, and the Lord will forgive us all of our sins. But there are temporal and life-long effects of the sins that we do, and consequences. Some of those long-term effects can alter our health or our marriageability.
Since this post is about purity, I'm addressing your comments about "damaged goods".

If anyone is sexually pure before marriage, it is by God’s grace and Him restraining sin in their lives (1 Corinthians 15:9,10).

The highest crime is to sin against a Holy God, and He made a way for men to be justified before Him. God is no respecter of persons. How do you present the gospel while telling those with certain sins they aren't as desirable?

Your responses echo of Luke 18:11. There are no second class citizens in the kingdom of God. I double down that those who have been forgiven much, love much.

It is not just the consequences of sin that can bring long-term effects on health, marriage, or finances. Anything we have is temporal and can be gone in an instant.

Parents want the best for their children, but outward things like occupation are not what the Lord values. Ultimately, parents should want a godly spouse for their children no matter their occupation, and in the case of women, a man who loves her as Christ loves His church.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Since this post is about purity, I'm addressing your comments about "damaged goods".

If anyone is sexually pure before marriage, it is by God’s grace and Him restraining sin in their lives (1 Corinthians 15:9,10).

The highest crime is to sin against a Holy God, and He made a way for men to be justified before Him. God is no respecter of persons. How do you present the gospel while telling those with certain sins they aren't as desirable?

Your responses echo of Luke 18:11. There are no second class citizens in the kingdom of God. I double down that those who have been forgiven much, love much.

It is not just the consequences of sin that can bring long-term effects on health, marriage, or finances. Anything we have is temporal and can be gone in an instant.

Parents want the best for their children, but outward things like occupation are not what the Lord values. Ultimately, parents should want a godly spouse for their children no matter their occupation, and in the case of women, a man who loves her as Christ loves His church.
Like I said: the vilest sinner can be saved.

But only an idiot would set their daughter up with a former pedophile "because he is saved and pure now after all and he is not damaged goods'."
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
Like I said: the vilest sinner can be saved.

But only an idiot would set their daughter up with a former pedophile "because he is saved and pure now after all and he is not damaged goods'."
Pedophilia and a promiscuously wild youth are not categorically the same. If that were the case many men in history would never have married. It is just that in the West, women are reaching fornication rate parity with men.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Pedophilia and a promiscuously wild youth are not categorically the same. If that were the case many men in history would never have married. It is just that in the West, women are reaching fornication rate parity with men.
You make a fair point.

You are correct, they are not categorically the same: some sins are according to nature (desiring the opposite sex) and some sins are against nature (homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia).

So I retract my statement. Maybe a better defense would be to answer:

---
Like I said: the vilest sinner can be saved.

BUT most parents would hesitate to set their daughter up with a former murderer/drug dealer/thief with the reasoning that "because he is saved and pure now he is not damaged goods" and is equally marriageable when compared with all other potential mates.

----

How is that?

It is just NOT true that all potential spouses are equally desireable as spouses.

Some women admit this readily sometimes when asked as well, they prefer tall, fit good-looking men with money or status as opposed to a poor man that looks like Danny DeVito. A person's past matters as well. This is not a complicated or novel or controversial point. It is one of the many factors a person must consider when they are picking a spouse.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
You make a fair point.

You are correct, they are not categorically the same: some sins are according to nature (desiring the opposite sex) and some sins are against nature (homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia).

So I retract my statement. Maybe a better defense would be to answer:

---
Like I said: the vilest sinner can be saved.

BUT most parents would hesitate to set their daughter up with a former murderer/drug dealer/thief with the reasoning that "because he is saved and pure now he is not damaged goods" and is equally marriageable when compared with all other potential mates.

----

How is that?

It is just NOT true that all potential spouses are equally desireable as spouses.

Some women admit this readily sometimes when asked as well, they prefer tall, fit good-looking men with money or status as opposed to a poor man that looks like Danny DeVito. A person's past matters as well. This is not a complicated or novel or controversial point. It is one of the many factors a person must consider when they are picking a spouse.
I think we are in agreement.

The key element is the time between certain sins and trust.

I don't even like thinking about under what circumstances a pedophile could have my daughters hand. I'm more ready to entertain the idea of someone who has served 10 years for vehicular homicide and been out of prison for 5 years and converted for at least as many years. Pedophiles are among the most predatorial of people there are. I believe some are converted but not to be trusted again.

He didn't kill anyone but Mez McConnell is great example of a former drug dealer, thief, vandal and brawler who has became well known church planter and pastor. Because of his past, he has challenges getting into other countries to speak. I don't think he's a routine traffic violator but if he's pulled over it is quite an ordeal due to his past. He's married now and has kids and planting churches where most Christians don't care to. BTW, we shouldn't forget that Paul did oversee the murder of Christians.

That was a digression. For less outlying patterns of sin than pedophilia as a father I want to see a pattern of obedience over a significant period of time. Evidence of a changed life. I'm not prepared to create matrices for each kind of sin but intuitively some patterns of sin would require longer periods of demonstrated repentance and recovery.
 

My Pilgrim Way

Puritan Board Freshman
I think we are in agreement.

The key element is the time between certain sins and trust.

I don't even like thinking about under what circumstances a pedophile could have my daughters hand. I'm more ready to entertain the idea of someone who has served 10 years for vehicular homicide and been out of prison for 5 years and converted for at least as many years. Pedophiles are among the most predatorial of people there are. I believe some are converted but not to be trusted again.

He didn't kill anyone but Mez McConnell is great example of a former drug dealer, thief, vandal and brawler who has became well known church planter and pastor. Because of his past, he has challenges getting into other countries to speak. I don't think he's a routine traffic violator but if he's pulled over it is quite an ordeal due to his past. He's married now and has kids and planting churches where most Christians don't care to. BTW, we shouldn't forget that Paul did oversee the murder of Christians.

That was a digression. For less outlying patterns of sin than pedophilia as a father I want to see a pattern of obedience over a significant period of time. Evidence of a changed life. I'm not prepared to create matrices for each kind of sin but intuitively some patterns of sin would require longer periods of demonstrated repentance and recovery.
I would hope that a truly converted former pedophile would decide on his own not to marry and, rather, serve the Lord being grateful that he's a brand plucked from the fire.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
I would hope that a truly converted former pedophile would decide on his own not to marry and, rather, serve the Lord being grateful that he's a brand plucked from the fire.
That reminds of me of a Focus on the Family episode I heard years ago where they were interviewing an expert on these people. One the more convincing pedophile converts to Christianity, according to the expert, constantly begged the courts to leave him locked up and deny him parole.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think we are in agreement.

The key element is the time between certain sins and trust.

I don't even like thinking about under what circumstances a pedophile could have my daughters hand. I'm more ready to entertain the idea of someone who has served 10 years for vehicular homicide and been out of prison for 5 years and converted for at least as many years. Pedophiles are among the most predatorial of people there are. I believe some are converted but not to be trusted again.

He didn't kill anyone but Mez McConnell is great example of a former drug dealer, thief, vandal and brawler who has became well known church planter and pastor. Because of his past, he has challenges getting into other countries to speak. I don't think he's a routine traffic violator but if he's pulled over it is quite an ordeal due to his past. He's married now and has kids and planting churches where most Christians don't care to. BTW, we shouldn't forget that Paul did oversee the murder of Christians.

That was a digression. For less outlying patterns of sin than pedophilia as a father I want to see a pattern of obedience over a significant period of time. Evidence of a changed life. I'm not prepared to create matrices for each kind of sin but intuitively some patterns of sin would require longer periods of demonstrated repentance and recovery.
I agree with you.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I would hope that a truly converted former pedophile would decide on his own not to marry and, rather, serve the Lord being grateful that he's a brand plucked from the fire.
But now you are putting a stipulation upon a former sinner as if his former sins are not washed totally clean?

I believe you have already granted my major point: that some former sins render some persons less marriageability.
 

My Pilgrim Way

Puritan Board Freshman
But now you are putting a stipulation upon a former sinner as if his former sins are not washed totally clean?

I believe you have already granted my major point: that some former sins render some persons less marriageability.
Again, your responses were about a woman's purity and not only insults many of your sisters in Christ but brothers in Christ who choose to love and marry "damaged goods".

I believe it is with very good reason the Lord uses such harsh language against Israel as a whore and harlot as well as including the account of Hosea. He could have chosen something much less defiling.

You're very vocal against the shaming of women who have been sexually abused, yet, you have no qualms shaming women purchased with the precious blood of Christ.

Thanks for reminding me why I should stay off PB. Good grief!
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Again, your responses were about a woman's purity and not only insults many of your sisters in Christ but brothers in Christ who choose to love and marry "damaged goods".

Thanks for reminding me why I should stay off PB. Good grief!
Yes, someone dared to have a different opinion than you online.

You are quite free even to tell your children to date ex-cons and former murderers who profess faith because all sins are now washed clean and we should not dwell on the past.
 

My Pilgrim Way

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, someone dared to have a different opinion than you online.

You are quite free to tell your children to date ex-cons and former murderers who profess faith.
I'm no snowflake. I just have better things to do with my time. A lot of what you say in truly uncalled for and uncharitable.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I'm no snowflake. I just have better things to do with my time. A lot of what you say in truly uncalled for and uncharitable.
Yes, or no? Do some former sins render some people less marriagable?

p.s. You've already granted my point in reference to pedophiles.


---


p.s.s. If a man is courting a woman and he has a previous history of domestic violence, even though he has claimed repentance, I would still caution the woman about his past. Is it because I don't believe in the shed blood of Christ? Is it because I don't believe he is "washed clean" and is not "pure" by the blood of Jesus?

No. it is because I don't want to see a woman beaten by a man with a past history of beating women. Behaviors and personality are largely fixed and repeatable. Change takes decades in most cases. What a person has done in the past is a good guide for what a person will do in the future.
 
Last edited:

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
But now you are putting a stipulation upon a former sinner as if his former sins are not washed totally clean?

I believe you have already granted my major point: that some former sins render some persons less marriageability.
So if your sons have sex before marriage will they expect their betrothed to be virgins?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Behaviors and personality are largely fixed and repeatable.
Partly true. Not all behaviors are fixed, though. A man who is psychiatrically deranged and abusive is one thing. A woman who slept with her boyfriend at age 16, felt remorse about it, repented, found Jesus, never repeated the action, is not a serial harlot.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
Speaking as someone who has never fornicated, I generally try to discourage people from thinking that they can only marry a virgin. Is it preferable to marry a virgin? Yes, but are you really going to pass up a God-fearing woman because she indulged in fornication prior to her conversion at age 19? Some men will answer that question in the affirmative and I will not criticise them harshly for holding that preference. But I do wonder if it is a good idea for them to expect such a high standard from a potential spouse? How would they feel if a godly woman refused to marry them because they had ever once watched p0rnography?
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Partly true. Not all behaviors are fixed, though. A man who is psychiatrically deranged and abusive is one thing. A woman who slept with her boyfriend at age 16, felt remorse about it, repented, found Jesus, never repeated the action, is not a serial harlot.
Agreed. Your scenario is a lot different than the "Come Back Barbara" scenario presented above.

In the "Come Back Barbara" scenario presented above she was married twice before she met #3 her current husband, and she ran around in between those multiple husbands. Yet I did nearly get called a Pharisee for saying that Come Back Barbara is low on desirability as a potential spouse.

One of my main points is this: There is a thing called "marriageability" (i.e. how well or poorly suited a person is for marriage) and many factors influence marriageability, to include health, education, temperment, and even past sins. Being saved by grace doesn't mean one suddenly becomes an ideal marriage partner.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top