What is love?

[davejonescue]

If that is what you think you have misconstrued what I said. She won't think of me as her husband; but she won't forget the good which God has wrought from that relationship. She doesn't enter into eternity a tabula rasa.



You are speaking as a stranger to the other affections of married life. There are bonds that are created through our associations with other people. Marriage is a legal relation. The bonds that are developed within it are personal. They cannot be dissolved by death.



We are like the angels; there is no procreation. So those types of lusts are gone. It doesn't mean I won't have sweet memories. Do yo have any view of the depths of personhood? It does not appear that you do.




Experiences do not evaporate. The church celebrates redemption in Christ -- a past experience. We are not swallowed up into a static nothingness. The more you argue your view the more I wonder if I am speaking to a computer who has no power to reflect on the personal goods of life.

If there were something so sacred about marriage, that hinged on an eternal imperative, most likely some of the most prominent models of the faith would have gotten married. But I don't think they viewed it with the same veracity or imperative some do. While of course, I agree with them that it is a good thing, and it is worthy of honor, I also agree with them that it will be annulled, and that some things are better. I think you think I am a computer because I disagree with what you are so used to hearing agreement about. And I knew this from the beginning. I have had conversations with you on this topic before, and you, like some, cannot conceive that marriage is not the epitome of the Christian existence. You will not allow yourself to now, nor when we were discussing 1 Cor. 7. It is what it is. I don't fault you for it, and I am glad you do it. It reminds me of just how meaningful marriage is to those who are married. Good for you brother, you have been exceedingly blessed.

 

[Andrew35]

Did anyone read the title of this thread and their mind immediately went to this?
View attachment 12624

Did anyone not?

And if so, quit browsing and get back to your studies. Your mom comes soon to pick you up from school.

 

[Theoretical]

And apart from the sensual affection associated with marriage, what is one left with besides family?

A deep brother-sister relationship for one. Godly marriages often have a profound friendship that is deeply shared with others around them, not just their children. To quote the Letter to Diognetus, these people [and Christians in general] share their tables but not their beds. Sexual attraction and intimacy is but one important but NOT entire part of the marriage, and certainly not the only thing that drives the marriage.

I have had deep friendships with married couples as an adult in my single/never married status, during my marriage, and once again, the overwhelming majority of my friends are married in my single/divorced status, so that’s my standing place in this conversation.

My life has been made dramatically richer by the love married couples share for one another as part of their friendship and sharing with others. I like to think I’ve been able to bless them in some ways of my own, also making each of our lives richer and pointing us to Christ in each capacity. I don’t think Rev. Winzer has stated that marriage is the epitome of Christian existence, at least not in this thread, and I don’t think that fits his other postings either.

In no sense are we given the idea that the redeemed creation will be flat and monochromatic. Instead, the New Jerusalem is described in fabulously ornate and grand terms. Brothers and sisters, even fully redeemed biological ones, will love each other fully, and I think that will manifest itself in more and not less diverse ways. Even in this life, love between others shows itself in very different ways. How that happens, we don’t know, but the same God who created countless hair and skin colors is not suddenly going to whip out a cookie cutter other than the fact we will have restored human natures. I do not think a deep friendship, whether borne out of marriage or not, suddenly disappears, but rather its full fruitfulness would be manifested.

 

[MW]

If there were something so sacred about marriage, that hinged on an eternal imperative, most likely some of the most prominent models of the faith would have gotten married. But I don't think they viewed it with the same veracity or imperative some do. While of course, I agree with them that it is a good thing, and it is worthy of honor, I also agree with them that it will be annulled, and that some things are better. I think you think I am a computer because I disagree with what you are so used to hearing agreement about. And I knew this from the beginning. I have had conversations with you on this topic before, and you, like some, cannot conceive that marriage is not the epitome of the Christian existence. You will not allow yourself to now, nor when we were discussing 1 Cor. 7. It is what it is. I don't fault you for it, and I am glad you do it. It reminds me of just how meaningful marriage is to those who are married. Good for you brother, you have been exceedingly blessed.

I don't think it has to do with marriage so much as personhood. Take it out of the realm of marriage. Put it in the realm of friendship, as Scott has explained. It is all the same. Love is personal. I cannot fathom an impersonal love. God is love and He is personally differentiated. The Father does not love the Son as the Holy Spirit; He loves the Son as the Son. We will serve God in heaven. Surely we will appreciate what each one does for the Lord, and be a help to one another in it. Appreciation is an expression of love. Everyone will not give the same kind of service to God. It will be differentiated as God Himself is personally differentiated to us. Hence appreciation will be differentiated. God will be everything in everything but everything will not be God.

 

[davejonescue]

God will be everything in everything but everything will not be God.

It cracks me up a bit you still try to paint me as what appears to be a pantheist just because I said marriage points to the depth of love we will have for each other. Good talk though.

 

[Joshua]

Did anyone read the title of this thread and their mind immediately went to this?
View attachment 12624

This was what I thought of:

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

If there were something so sacred about marriage, that hinged on an eternal imperative, most likely some of the most prominent models of the faith would have gotten married.

Scraping my brain for who you might have in mind here. Besides the apostle Paul and St. Augustine, most of the models of the faith who remained unmarried were in some way affected by the world-rejecting monasticism of medieval Christianity, which had its place in church history but definitely veered into error. In our time J. Gresham Machen and John Stott come to mind, but certainly they are a minority in that regard.

Almost all of the Reformers, most Reformed/Protestant saints thereafter, and a pretty respectable portion of the Eastern Fathers chose to marry.

I don't think the fact that God has not called every last prominent Christian ever to be a husband or wife negates the good of marriage or justifies your rather odd additude toward it, anymore than the fact that God has not called every godly man to be a pastor or deacon negates the glory of church office. I say that as a single man, one who often thinks I may personally not be called to marry, and therefore supposedly privy to the world-weary wisdom and universal love that you think married people simply can't understand.
[automerge]1772132134[/automerge]
I misspelled attitude. Whoopsie

 

[davejonescue]

Scraping my brain for who you might have in mind here. Besides the apostle Paul and St. Augustine, most of the models of the faith who remained unmarried were in some way affected by the world-rejecting monasticism of medieval Christianity, which had its place in church history but definitely veered into error. In our time J. Gresham Machen and John Stott come to mind, but certainly they are a minority in that regard.

Almost all of the Reformers, most Reformed/Protestant saints thereafter, and a pretty respectable portion of the Eastern Fathers chose to marry.

I don't think the fact that God has not called every last prominent Christian ever to be a husband or wife negates the good of marriage or justifies your rather odd additude toward it, anymore than the fact that God has not called every godly man to be a pastor or deacon negates the glory of church office. I say that as a single man, one who often thinks I may personally not be called to marry, and therefore supposedly privy to the world-weary wisdom and universal love that you think married people simply can't understand.

Brother, nobody is saying anything about married people not understanding love. That never came up in any of the discussion. The discussion is about whether marriage, and the deep love comprised between spouses, is a shadow of the familial love the saints will have for each other in heaven, when marriage between men and women will be no more. The whole arguments is in fact that married people share a form of the deepest love possible. My contention, is when marriage is done away with; and when the particular physical affections are no longer permissible between brothers and sisters (as opposed to husbands and wives) that all that will be left is an equilateral, perfect, sacrificial, familial love; as deep as what married people now feel. Because we will be glorified, because we will be sinless, because sin cannot exist; and, because the all the commandments hinge on love for God & neighbor; I see present marriage (and all the sacrifices, union, the sheer relational depth) as pointing to what we will experience with and for each other in glory.

In absolutely none of my comments did I have anything negative to say about the institution of marriage. What some disagree with me with, is they think there will be an eternal especial love that transcends this temporal existence, into eternity, so that for eternity, those previously married, will eternally love "more" their former spouses than others. I disagree. I think their will be a comradery unique to the past experience; but I think much of that will be refashioned from the lack of permissible physical attraction and longing we are now naturally endowed with here, paired with the reality of an unending existence (and complete fulfillment in Christ). So that the relationships we "will" make, may very well be much deeper than the relationships we "had" made here on earth. Especially when I think for many, spouses, children, parents, and close friends will not share eternity with them; so this will make the "divine family" bond even closer.

My point, is when degrees of love are concerned, I do not think people will, nor desire to necessarily compartmentalize love to show partial (or exceeding) affection to a few. In heaven there will be no danger of harm, no need to strive for provision, no sin, no pain. We will be completely free to love each other fully, to the very depths of our being; as we share in corporate bridal relation to our singular groom.

No, there is nothing wrong with marriage. But I only think it is a shadow. 1. Of course to point to the love our savior has for us, and the love we should have for our savior. But also the depth of love we should (and will) have for each other.

Also, the other examples of single role models would include John the Baptist, Jesus, and (most likely) Timothy.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

equilateral

I think my love for all the brethren will be perfected in heaven. I don't see any reason to suppose my love for the beloved mother who led me to Jesus will be equal and identical to my love for each and every glorified saint. Distinction and diversity between persons is good and will continue in heaven. Even if there is equality, I find the indistinctness of your vision a little troubling. I think I love my five siblings equally, but I definitely don't love them the same, if that makes sense.

(most likely) Timothy

Likely based on what? The only writings we have about him say nothing as to his marital status, so he could certainly have been married when they were written - and even if he wasn't, they speak of him as a very young man. He could certainly have been married later. Jesus is married and this is actually a disaster for your point. The Son of God made each and every man, woman, and child; willed each one some good; made the rain to fall on the just and the unjust; desired to gather Jerusalem as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings - but became incarnate, lived, died, and rose again for His Bride alone. Not only is it proper as creatures that we have ordered loves, but even God's love is not equilateral. Where would you and I be if it was? And I think it's self-evident that John's calling was...very unusual. Unless you want to make a post about how Christians who eat normal food, which will no longer exist in the resurrection, miss something about heaven that you have come to understand from eating locusts and honey.

Brother, nobody is saying anything about married people not understanding love.

And I quote:

Its hard having these discussions with people with spouses and children because I think there is a tendency to be partial to the idea that such things demand eternal especiality.

And again:

I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse

And again:

you, like some, cannot conceive that marriage is not the epitome of the Christian existence.

 

[davejonescue]

I think my love for all the brethren will be perfected in heaven. I don't see any reason to suppose my love for the beloved mother who led me to Jesus will be equal and identical to my love for each and every glorified saint. Distinction and diversity between persons is good and will continue in heaven. Even if there is equality, I find the indistinctness of your vision a little troubling. I think I love my five siblings equally, but I definitely don't love them the same, if that makes sense.

Likely based on what? The only writings we have about him say nothing as to his marital status, so he could certainly have been married when they were written - and even if he wasn't, they speak of him as a very young man. He could certainly have been married later. Jesus is married and this is actually a disaster for your point. The Son of God made each and every man, woman, and child; willed each one some good; made the rain to fall on the just and the unjust; desired to gather Jerusalem as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings - but became incarnate, lived, died, and rose again for His Bride alone. Not only is it proper as creatures that we have ordered loves, but even God's love is not equilateral. Where would you and I be if it was? And I think it's self-evident that John's calling was...very unusual. Unless you want to make a post about how Christians who eat normal food, which will no longer exist in the resurrection, miss something about heaven that you have come to understand from eating locusts and honey.

And I quote:

And again:

And again:

And yet, when did in any of those things you quoted did I say something negative about the institution of marriage? Because beer can make me drunk, or because I call someone a drunk, doesn't mean I am calling beer bad.

And, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Jesus lived as a single man. The same with John the Baptist, the same with Paul, and the same as most likely Timothy. i.e. The Greatest Prophet, our Lord, and the Greatest Evangelist. So yeah, that is a pretty stacked list of role models. Also, ask yourself the question why God is partial? Is it that he does not desire that none should perish? Or is it that sin exists and he has decreed that his wrath also be an exhibition of his glory along with his mercy? Meaning, where there is no sin, there is no partiality.

You say you love your siblings equally. That is my point. In Heaven we will not be married. We will be eternal siblings; and all brides of the same spouse. Why would we love each other any different than you love your family now?

Also, what is not being talked about in this discussion is the question of, "Is love mainly an act or emotion? If it is the former, I think this builds an even stronger case of the equilateral love we should expect in glory.

 

[MW]

Also, what is not being talked about in this discussion is the question of, "Is love mainly an act or emotion? If it is the former, I think this builds an even stronger case of the equilateral love we should expect in glory.

Love is both. To act without some inward motive is not true love. We are to love the good and hate the evil. So if by "emotions" is meant the philosophical concept of motive causes, then the act must begin with an emotion in order to be genuine. But by emotions you might mean something else. Either way in heaven there will be perfect harmony between emotions and actions, so the emotions will go first and willingly engage us in the action. There is no evil for us to overcome that might require a separation of emotions, as we do on earth.

Divines speak of benevolence and complacence. But the kind of love under discussion in this thread includes both. Benevolence is more the goodwill of love, complacence is the delight. We would show benevolence to our enemies, and to our neighbour in general when they displease us. Complacence is more about the unitive nature of love, as when God says He will rest in His love. This is its consummation. Hence it must be the constituent nature of love in heaven -- a full delight in the saints. But the saints are not God. They will still have differences among themselves. Hence our delights in each one will be different according to our various experiences.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

And yet, when did in any of those things you quoted did I say something negative about the institution of marriage?

Here:

I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse

And, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Jesus lived as a single man, along with John the Baptist, and along with Paul, and along most likely with Timothy.

I do like to acknowledge it. I also like to point out the obvious reasons that Jesus' and John the Baptist's lives are not intended to be the "norm" for believers in every detail. Regarding Paul, of the apostles, he was the only one not to take along a believing wife (1 Corinthians 9:5). Doesn't that just make mincemeat of your whole point? If anyone should have spurned marriage to better love the brethren universally, shouldn't it have been the universal and extraordinary officers of the church? And yet, with the exception of Paul, they did marry.

And whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the following lived as married men.
-Noah
-Abraham
-Moses
-Aaron
-Caleb (unless Achsah was illegitimate, which is nowhere indicated)
-Ezekiel
-Peter
-Andrew
-James the son of Zebedee
-John
-Philip
-Bartholomew
-Thomas
-Matthew
-James the son of Alphaeus
-Thaddaeus
-Simon the Zealot
-Matthias
-Gregory of Nyssa
-Hilary of Poitiers
-Tertullian
-Martin Luther
-Philip Melanchthon
-John Calvin
-Huldrych Zwingli
-Heinrich Bullinger
-Thomas Cranmer
-Johann Sebastian Bach
-John Knox
-Martin Bucer
-John Owen
-John Flavel
-Jonathan Edwards
-John Bunyan
-Thomas Manton
-George Gillespie
-James Durham
-Jeremiah Burroughs
-Governor William Bradford
-Thomas Watson
-Father Brakel
-Herman Witsius
-William Teelinck
-John Mason Neale
-Horatius Bonar
-C.H. Spurgeon
-B.B. Warfield
-Archibald Alexander
-Herman Bavinck
-Geerhardus Vos
-Richard Wurmbrand
-C.S. Lewis
-R.C. Sproul
-Ernie Reisinger
-Al Martin
-J.I. Packer

If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest, I could claim with the same boldness that you state Timothy most likely remained unmarried that Apollos most likely had a wife. Who's to say otherwise? Why can't I also stick a "most likely" under any assertion that the Bible doesn't directly speak to?

You say you love your siblings equally. That is my point.

It really isn't. Did you read the rest of my sentence? I don't have a "favorite" sibling, but the love I share with each sibling is unique and special to only that sibling - to the exclusion of the others. And I don't love every believer in the world as much as I love my little brothers and sister, nor should I.

 

[davejonescue]

Here:



I do like to acknowledge it. I also like to point out the obvious reasons that Jesus' and John the Baptist's lives are not intended to be the "norm" for believers in every detail. Regarding Paul, of the apostles, he was the only one not to take along a believing wife (1 Corinthians 9:5). Doesn't that just make mincemeat of your whole point? If anyone should have spurned marriage to better love the brethren universally, shouldn't it have been the universal and extraordinary officers of the church? And yet, with the exception of Paul, they did marry.

And whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the following lived as married men.
-Noah
-Abraham
-Moses
-Aaron
-Caleb (unless Achsah was illegitimate, which is nowhere indicated)
-Ezekiel
-Peter
-Andrew
-James the son of Zebedee
-John
-Philip
-Bartholomew
-Thomas
-Matthew
-James the son of Alphaeus
-Thaddaeus
-Simon the Zealot
-Matthias
-Gregory of Nyssa
-Hilary of Poitiers
-Tertullian
-Martin Luther
-Philip Melanchthon
-John Calvin
-Huldrych Zwingli
-Heinrich Bullinger
-Thomas Cranmer
-Johann Sebastian Bach
-John Knox
-Martin Bucer
-John Owen
-John Flavel
-Jonathan Edwards
-John Bunyan
-Thomas Manton
-George Gillespie
-James Durham
-Jeremiah Burroughs
-Governor William Bradford
-Thomas Watson
-Father Brakel
-Herman Witsius
-William Teelinck
-John Mason Neale
-Horatius Bonar
-C.H. Spurgeon
-B.B. Warfield
-Archibald Alexander
-Herman Bavinck
-Geerhardus Vos
-Richard Wurmbrand
-C.S. Lewis
-R.C. Sproul
-Ernie Reisinger
-Al Martin
-J.I. Packer

If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest, I could claim with the same boldness that you state Timothy most likely remained unmarried that Apollos most likely had a wife. Who's to say otherwise? Why can't I also stick a "most likely" under any assertion that the Bible doesn't directly speak to?


It really isn't. Did you read the rest of my sentence? I don't have a "favorite" sibling, but the love I share with each sibling is unique and special to only that sibling - to the exclusion of the others. And I don't love every believer in the world as much as I love my little brothers and sister, nor should I.

How is this "I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse" talking negatively about the institution of marriage? You really are trying to make it sound like I hate marriage, lol. No. My point in that, for instance, is the Bible tells us we are not to just pray for the brethren in need, but if we have material opportunity, that we also bless them with what they actually need on top of prayer. A single person who lives DT, might be willing to give a brother who lives in the country his car to get to town so he doesnt have to walk. A married man also living DT will most likely not allow himself to consider such a thing, because his wife and family come as a vocational precedent over his potential desire to bless the brother in the country. In heaven, no such restrains will be there, because the vocation of marriage will not exist between saints.

As far as your list, thank you for that. The difference between them and what I was talking about, is I never said these men were not married; while you said Jesus was married (in his incarnation?)

And your point of you love your family equally is exactly my point. In heaven there is no marriage between saints? So what then? We will all be as a family with the Lord first among many brethren. Again, if you love your family equally here on earth, will we love our eternal family in heaven any different? So yes, I read your sentence:

 

[MW]

Jonathan Edwards: "There is undoubtedly an inconceivably pure, sweet, and fervent love between the saints in glory; and that love is in proportion to the perfection and amiableness of the objects beloved, and therefore it must necessarily cause delight in them when they see that the happiness and glory of others are in proportion to their amiableness, and so in proportion to their love to them. Those that are highest in glory, are those that are highest in holiness, and therefore are those that are most beloved by all the saints; for they most love those that are most holy, and so they will all rejoice in their being the most happy. And it will not be a grief to any of the saints to see those that are higher than themselves in holiness and likeness to God, more loved also than themselves, for all shall have as much love as they desire, and as great manifestations of love as they can bear; and so all shall be fully satisfied; and where there is perfect satisfaction, there can be no reason for envy."

As I noted earlier, different sized buckets; but all full to the brim with the ocean of divine love.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

How is this "I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse" talking negatively about the institution of marriage?

By painting it as an unnecessary hindrance (i.e., complication) to a (real or imagined) divine command.

You really are trying to make it sound like I hate marriage, lol.

And you are doing a fine job all by yourself of showing a smug attitude toward your married brethren.

My point in that, for instance, is the Bible tells us we are not to just pray for the brethren in need, but if we have material opportunity, that we also bless them with what they actually need on top of prayer.

Who has more material opportunity to bless a particular brother or sister than his or her spouse???

A single person who lives DT, might be willing to give a brother who lives in the country his car to get to town so he doesnt have to walk. A married man also living DT will most likely not allow himself to consider such a thing, because his wife and family come as a vocational precedent over his potential desire to bless the brother in the country.

Yes, there are ways a single man can be a blessing to the body that are unavailable to a married man, which is a part of why I am considering remaining as I am. And there are ways a married man can bless the body that a single man cannot. Last year, I was a teacher at a Christian school. I had an unbelieving female student who was interested in the gospel and desired to get to church somehow. For reasons I needn't elaborate upon, if I had had a wife and children, we probably could have given her a ride to my church! And what you're missing is the fact that the married man is a blessing to his own family. He is blessing his family in a way that no one else can. Yes, we should extend our hand to the brother whom God's institutions have left behind, but such institutions exist as an ordinary channel of benevolence. It is good that we receive what we need ordinarily from our own communities and institutions, primarily our church and our household.

The difference between them and what I was talking about, is I never said these men were not married

Yes, but you made your very brief list, four names long and including two obvious "special cases," part of your argument. On that point, my argument is stronger.

you said Jesus was married (in his incarnation?)

LOL I never said that Jesus "was" anything. He is married, and His spiritual marriage to a small, undeserving remnant of the fallen humanity is a better reason to believe that heavenly love will be ordered and distinct than anyone's earthly marriage or singleness.

So yes, I read your sentence:

That's weird. According to your screenshot, my sentence ends with a comma! How embarrassing for an ex-English teacher!
[automerge]1772141506[/automerge]

your very brief list, four names long and including two obvious "special cases,"

And including Timothy, whose singleness again could most charitably be described as a "guess."

 

[davejonescue]

And you are doing a fine job all by yourself of showing a smug attitude toward your married brethren.

Don't confuse sameness with smugness. I am not smug just because I don't elevate something. What the Papist did with Virginity, the Protestants did with Marriage. Both seats are higher than they should be. The Papist says you cant be married, the Protestant says you must be married, and so on, and so forth.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

Don't confuse sameness with smugness.

I'm confusing smugness with smugness. See:

It is the present bond that doesn't want to give up the special place to universal love.

My point, is that marriage, though while serving a present purpose, and a very good purpose; also often times creates a dependency. One where someone can tell you flatly "Jesus is enough" but the thought that we will not be especially loved by our former spouse, when we will be loved by Jesus, or could be equally loved by all the saints, is still a disappointment. There is a longing in us to be special, or to be especially recognized, even if it is only by a single one like us. And I think this is the fright of all those who would cling to especiality as opposed to universality in eternal love.

the reason it is hard to have these conversations with people that are married, and with children, and are parents; is they have a tendency to think these things are the epitome of life.

I don't think some married people want that depth of love to be universal. I think they want to be especially loved by some one, and for some one to reserve that depth just for them....eternally.

And one where I think possibly a single and married may not agree. You put a lot of emphasis on things done in this life, as if they are some sort of epitome.

you still want to cling on to this idea that your wife will spend eternity thinking of you like a husband as she does now.

 

[Theoretical]

You really are trying to make it sound like I hate marriage, lol.

And apart from the sensual affection associated with marriage, what is one left with besides family? In heaven you will no longer look at her like you do now, because she will not be your wife. You will not even lust after her because to do so would be adultery. And adultery will not exist.

It may not be your intent, but this statement and statements similar to it are profoundly dismissive and even contemptuous of marriage in the here and now. It's basically a grown up "besides that icky physical stuff, what good is a wife/husband?" whether intended or not.

Moreover, no one else in this thread has been elevating marriage as the highest form of Christian expression. I agree with you that there's overall something either outright of parity between the two states or much closer than everyone should get married or no one should get married, but that's not the point of this thread.

 

[davejonescue]

It may not be your intent, but this statement and statements similar to it are profoundly dismissive and even contemptuous of marriage in the here and now. It's basically a grown up "besides that icky physical stuff, what good is a wife/husband?" whether intended or not.

On the contrary, I think I have been saying what profound good marriage is. It is that understanding of the good of marriage, the depth of love it entails, and further honoring that love by choosing it (out of all of the forms of love that could be chosen) as the shadow I think closest resembles the love the saints will share in our glorified, sinless, and perfected state. I simply do not get how that is giving off icky vibes?

This is why I point back to the elevation. For some, if marriage is not being elevated, it is being dishonored. And that is why these discussions are hard to have with married people.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

And that is why these discussions are hard to have with married people.

And here you go again.

I'm not married, never was, quite possibly never will be (because I, like you, see the benefits of single life and don't consider marriage the epitome of the Christian walk). And even I can see how dismissive you sound toward something God made for man's benefit and called "very good" - and the brethren who partake actively of that benefit. Maybe it's not married people who are hard to have discussions with.

 

[MarrowMan]

@davejonescue, I'd love to cut through a lot of things here by asking a simple question. Do you think that love in the eternal state would still be informed by the distinct persons there? That is to say, we will love all perfectly, but in a way that is informed by the person being loved?

 

[Ed Walsh]

If marriage and children will be no more in the life to come; is the love we have for our spouse and children a shadow of the love we will have for each other in the life to come, or, is it a shadow of the love Christ has for his bride? The reason I ask this, is while many of us would like to say we love others, I think it is normal, and even natural to love our family, spouse, and children especially. But in Heaven those vocations will annulled. So is that especial love the way God intended each of us to love the brethren, but since we fall short in doing so in this life because our devotion is divided, will we not realize this perfect love for all the saints until we are glorified and can do no other in Heaven?

About heaven, I'm just joking, but here goes. The Lord teaches us that there will be no marriage in heaven, he didn't say there would be no sex. Not just forget I said that.

I read CS Lewis book the four loves couple years ago and I think that's worth mentioning here. Maybe somebody already has because I didn't read all of the posts yet. But here are the four love she was talking about in the briefest of definitions. Thought maybe that would help a little.

• Storge (Affection): The natural, unchosen fondness for the familiar, like the love between a parent and child.
• Philia (Friendship): The strong bond between people who share a common interest, insight, or "truth."
• Eros (Romance): The state of "being in love" or the emotional and sexual desire for a specific person.
• Agape (Charity): The selfless, unconditional, and sacrificial love that seeks the well-being of others regardless of merit.

 

[John Nyberg]

@davejonescue

Dave, if I could attempt to condense what I believe to be your main point: Marriage is not the epitome of Love itself, nor is it the ultimate purpose of Life itself. In certain circles, marriage is so much esteemed that it encroaches on ends that are truly eternal. Is that fair?

As a married man, I can certainly take this type of criticism and probably profit from it. Is it possible that a good, natural affection for my children (or wife) might become sinful due to inward corruption? Absolutely! In fact, in this life all my affections are subject to corruption and futility. We all know what it is like to be subject to a good desire that has become rotten in our hearts.

Brother Ed provided an excellent perspective from C.S. Lewis, who I will also quote. Below is an excerpt from Lewis’ The Great Divorce, in which we see a mother (Pam) who finds her natural love for her long deceased child turn sour and bitter:

Reginald: “You exist as Michael's mother only because you first exist as God's creature. That relation is older and closer. No, listen, Pam! He also loves. He also has suffered. He also has waited a long time."

Pam: "If He loved me He'd let me see my boy. If He loved me why did He take away Michael from me? I wasn't going to say anything about that. But it's pretty hard to forgive, you know."

Reginald: "But He had to take Michael away. Partly for Michael's sake. . . ."

Pam: "I'm sure I did my best to make Michael happy. I gave up my whole life...."

Reginald: "Human beings can't make one another really happy for long. And secondly, for your sake. He wanted your merely instinctive love for your child (tigresses share that, you know!) to turn into something better. He wanted you to love Michael as He understands love. You cannot love a fellow-creature fully till you love God. Sometimes this conversion can be done while the instinctive love is still gratified. But there was, it seems, no chance of that in your case. The instinct was uncontrolled and fierce and monomaniac. (Ask your daughter, or your husband. Ask your ownmother. You haven't once thought of her.) The only remedy was to take away its object. It was a case for surgery. When that first kind of love was thwarted, then there was just a chance that in the loneliness, in the silence, something else might begin to grow."

Pam: "This is all nonsense-cruel and wicked nonsense. What right have you to say things like that about Mother-love? It is the highest and holiest feeling in human nature."

Reginald: "Pam, Pam-no natural feelings are high or low, holy or unholy, in themselves. They are all holy when God's hand is on the rein. They all go bad when they set up on their own and make themselves into false gods."

 

[davejonescue]

Dave, if I could attempt to condense what I believe to be your main point: Marriage is not the epitome of Love itself, nor is it the ultimate purpose of Life itself. In certain circles, marriage is so much esteemed that it encroaches on ends that are truly eternal. Is that fair?

No, this is not my main point at all. My main point is I believe marriage is the closest current shadow to the depth of love all the saints will feel for each other in heaven. Thats literally it.

 

[MW]

No, this is not my main point at all. My main point is I believe marriage is the closest current shadow to the depth of love all the saints will feel for each other in heaven. Thats literally it.

And from where do you derive this in the Bible? Marriage is about complementarity of two different things. Male and female. And it is exclusive by nature. It also entails headship of the husband. All of this fits perfectly with Christ and the church. It does not fit at all with brethren. One is forbidden to marry one's brethren. For the saints, the Bible speaks of brotherhood, not marriage. Brethren love as brethren, not as husband and wife.

 

[davejonescue]

And from where do you derive this in the Bible? Marriage is about complementarity of two different things. Male and female. And it is exclusive by nature. It also entails headship of the husband. All of this fits perfectly with Christ and the church. It does not fit at all with brethren. One is forbidden to marry one's brethren. For the saints, the Bible speaks of brotherhood, not marriage. Brethren love as brethren, not as husband and wife.

I am not going through the whole argument again. Not worth it.

 

[MW]

I am not going through the whole argument again. Not worth it.

Not worth it because it is indefensible. You should just take your medicine.

 

[John Nyberg]

Not worth it because it is indefensible. You should just take your medicine.

What does that mean, brother? Wanna elaborate? Clarify? It seems insulting from my point of view

 

[MW]

What does that mean, brother? Wanna elaborate? Clarify? It seems insulting from my point of view

It might be a cross-cultural thing. Over here, to take your medicine, is to simply accept correction. If it has another connotation over there, I apologise. No offence intended.

 

[MarrowMan]

It might be a cross-cultural thing. Over here, to take your medicine, is to simply accept correction. If it has another connotation over there, I apologise. No offence intended.

It means that here, but in a condescending fashion. Here, it wreaks of arrogance,