tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post1575368873333970109..comments2023-10-31T06:32:05.082-05:00Comments on Biblical Manhood: Separating the Men from the BoysAnakin Niceguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09175647581810782580noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-8380448131281405422016-12-06T18:47:47.001-06:002016-12-06T18:47:47.001-06:00STAND IN FAITH EVEN WHEN YOU'RE HAVING THE HAR...STAND IN FAITH EVEN WHEN YOU'RE HAVING THE HARDEST TIME OF YOUR LIFE :)<br /><a href="http://www.imarksweb.net" rel="nofollow">imarksweb.net</a><br />imarksweb.netAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284482949678659132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-60084655195047289122009-10-06T19:36:35.924-05:002009-10-06T19:36:35.924-05:00"And isn't it funny how everyone, includi..."And isn't it funny how everyone, including Amir, has said that it was a judgment call, and thus have not reacted in the same way that you have."<br /><br />You've experienced far more censure than that, Adam -- on and off these blogs.<br /> -- and you know it.<br /><br />"You need to take a hard look into the mirror, and exercise some hard self-criticism. I dare say, that is something all of the radical proponents of the mandatory marriage movement need to do."<br /><br />lol! Silly boy, I've NEVER been "mandatory marriage", let alone a "radical proponent" of it. Perhaps you're not quite the "exegete" that you pride yourself on being. How did Al Mohler describe what you did when you called in on his radio show? "A very eccentric reading". Quite right, that about sums up your approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-54489755933734839362009-10-06T19:11:23.934-05:002009-10-06T19:11:23.934-05:00Anon,
And isn't it funny how everyone, includ...Anon,<br /><br />And isn't it funny how everyone, including Amir, has said that it was a judgment call, and thus have not reacted in the same way that you have. However, <i>everyone</i> has criticized your behavior on this board. When it comes to your arguments, it is always personal, it is never exegetical. Once your arguments are exegetically challanged, you resort to this kind of stuff. I agree with Dani. There is no reason to continue this conversation with you. You need to take a hard look into the mirror, and exercise some hard self-criticism. I dare say, that is something all of the radical proponents of the mandatory marriage movement need to do.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AdamPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-43187079180488871062009-10-06T17:57:28.780-05:002009-10-06T17:57:28.780-05:00"What relevence is the thing she added to whe..."What relevence is the thing she added to whether or not your interpretation of that passage is correct? If Fee is correct, then the essential parts of her discussion are correct, and you are refuted."<br /><br />Here's the thing -- Fee does not swear up and down that he is correct like you do, Adam. He acknowledges that other theologians lean towards an interpretation that's directed more towards the unmarried in general, rather than the interpretation that he leans towards, being specifically widows. Either way, he does not claim that widows had greater possibility of lack of self-control due to previous sexual activity than virgins -- any such suggestion is absurd.<br /><br />"Again, I will simply allow your behavior to speak for itself."<br /><br />Same to you, Adam. It would be hard to top your character smear of Deanna, complete with photo and personal information, that's still on your old blog. Pity you don't have the grace to remove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-78504414957630132312009-10-06T15:33:07.956-05:002009-10-06T15:33:07.956-05:00Anon,
What I find funny is that you are taking us...Anon,<br /><br />What I find funny is that you are taking us on a red herring/wild goose chase. What relevence is the thing she added to whether or not your interpretation of that passage is correct? If Fee is correct, then the essential parts of her discussion are correct, and you are refuted. Plain and simple.<br /><br />Again, I will simply allow your behavior to speak for itself.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AdamPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-36613405272180679812009-10-06T11:32:52.043-05:002009-10-06T11:32:52.043-05:00"How could it be when Fee presents the basic ..."How could it be when Fee presents the basic outline of her argument, and rejects your argument by so doing?"<br /><br />Because she goes beyond Fee -- and I think you know that.<br /><br />"Also, why do you have to get so personal? Why can't you just deal with the text? We can agree to disagree, but mocking an argument is not dealing with the argument. Saying "you are really funny" and calling people "prideful" is not actually dealing with their arguments."<br /><br />Let's call it a deterrent to your red herring goosechases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-30239534953477723742009-10-06T01:19:37.116-05:002009-10-06T01:19:37.116-05:00Anon,
lol. The fact that she embellished Fee'...Anon,<br /><br /><i>lol. The fact that she embellished Fee's explanation is not relevant?</i><br /><br />How could it be when Fee presents the basic outline of her argument, <i>and rejects your argument by so doing</i>?<br /><br />Also, why do you have to get so personal? Why can't you just deal with the text? We can agree to disagree, but mocking an argument is not dealing with the argument. Saying "you are really funny" and calling people "prideful" is not actually dealing with their arguments. As I said, I let those kinds of comments speak for themselves.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AdamPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-30261310457825934042009-10-05T22:23:24.388-05:002009-10-05T22:23:24.388-05:00"The fact that the explaination is not, is ra..."The fact that the explaination is not, is rather irrelevant, and, in fact, Fee never addresses it in the first place!"<br /><br />lol. The fact that she embellished Fee's explanation is not relevant?<br /><br />You are funny, Adam, especially when defending damsels who have the same pious false pride around theology that you do. And about the same pet passages too. You'd make quite a pair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-19816194006350811412009-10-05T19:39:06.590-05:002009-10-05T19:39:06.590-05:00Anon,
You incorrectly summarized Fee's perspe...Anon,<br /><br /><i>You incorrectly summarized Fee's perspective on 1 Cor 7:9 as "widows - those whose previous sexual activity in marriage potentially leads to a greater possibility of lack of self-control in the face of temptation.", when in fact he NEVER suggested that widows had "greater possibility of lack of self-control" due to previous sexual activity. Fee simply leans toward favoring the theory that verses 8-9 were addressed to widows, which would thus render the passage irrelevant to young never-marrieds, but in no way does he suggest that the former group is more vulnerable to sexual temptation than the latter, or vice versa</i>.<br /><br />So What. All of the essential elements of her interpretation were in Fee. The fact that the explaination is not, is rather irrelevant, and, in fact, Fee never addresses it in the first place! So, all of the essential elements of her argument are in Fee, but you have to see everything she says in Fee before you will agree?????? Amazing.<br /><br /><i>There is a pattern to be seen in the (re)interpretations that you favour when it comes to passages that have historically commended marriage. I smell a rat -- 'nuff said</i>.<br /><br />Actually the rat I smell is someone who has to see every word in someone else before they will say that there is agreement. You can prove that anyone disagrees with anyone using this method. I simply let that speak for itself.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AdamPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-61520607937128335402009-10-05T15:57:33.664-05:002009-10-05T15:57:33.664-05:00"I agree – hence my ‘by and large’ disclaimer..."I agree – hence my ‘by and large’ disclaimer in my previous comment. I imagine the very fact that Paul makes his concession in v.9 means that there will be people who ‘cannot restrain themselves’. Although, I also think there is also something to be said for the exegetical argument of Gordon Fee and others, that Paul’s concession here in 1 Cor 7:9 is directly addressed at widows - those whose previous sexual activity in marriage potentially leads to a greater possibility of lack of self-control in the face of temptation.<br /><br />The sentences you cut put a bit of a different spin on things don't they? Like the fact that I actually agreed with you, but suggested that there might also be something to be said for the argument of a world renowed NT exegetical commentator on that verse."<br /><br />Glad you brought that up. As far as you "agreeing" with me, Dani, lol, you didn't seem to realize that I was not agree with you. You incorrectly summarized Fee's perspective on 1 Cor 7:9 as "widows - those whose previous sexual activity in marriage potentially leads to a greater possibility of lack of self-control in the face of temptation.", when in fact he NEVER suggested that widows had "greater possibility of lack of self-control" due to previous sexual activity. Fee simply leans toward favoring the theory that verses 8-9 were addressed to widows, which would thus render the passage irrelevant to young never-marrieds, but in no way does he suggest that the former group is more vulnerable to sexual temptation than the latter, or vice versa.<br /><br />There is a pattern to be seen in the (re)interpretations that you favour when it comes to passages that have historically commended marriage. I smell a rat -- 'nuff said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-48805159478208571782009-10-04T13:45:24.219-05:002009-10-04T13:45:24.219-05:00>>> Or perhaps you don't since you sa...>>> Or perhaps you don't since you saw fit to remove various parts of some of my posts (and replaced them with '...'s) and cut at least one of my comments from it's context (re-inserted in bold below).<<<<br /><br />Nooooo! Not Kotex girl - Catwoman! <i>She would never resort do this!!!</i> Why -- she's BALAAAANCED!Someonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-39506761262533948622009-10-03T01:47:01.859-05:002009-10-03T01:47:01.859-05:00Thanks for going to the effort of copying and past...Thanks for going to the effort of copying and pasting all of those comments I made on the other blog. <br /><br />I still stand behind everything I said and (despite what was no doubt your best effort to the contrary) I feel no shame or embarrassment or even discomfort at the fact that you have so diligently reproduced them here. <br /><br />In fact <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5608146077092873874&postID=8022505643607441398" rel="nofollow">here is the link</a> for anyone who would like to read our extended dialogue in full (they should be aware that 'anon' here = gortexgrrl there). I include the link because I find that context can often make all the difference don't you?<br /><br />Or perhaps you don't since you saw fit to remove various parts of some of my posts (and replaced them with '...'s) and cut at least one of my comments from it's context (re-inserted in bold below).<br /><br /><i><b>I agree – hence my ‘by and large’ disclaimer in my previous comment. I imagine the very fact that Paul makes his concession in v.9 means that there will be people who ‘cannot restrain themselves’. Although, I also think there is also something to be said for the exegetical argument of Gordon Fee and others, that </b> Paul’s concession here in 1 Cor 7:9 is directly addressed at widows - those whose previous sexual activity in marriage potentially leads to a greater possibility of lack of self-control in the face of temptation.</i><br /><br />The sentences you cut put a bit of a different spin on things don't they? Like the fact that I actually agreed with you, but suggested that there <i>might also be something to be said</i> for the argument of a world renowed NT exegetical commentator on that verse. I didn't claim his views, hook, line and sinker as my own (as you intentionally misrepresented on this thread). I indicated I thought there might be some value to his exegesis. And I still do.<br /><br />A couple of final things:<br /><br />Firstly - You referred to an article by Christopher Ash. For anyone who is interested, <a href="http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_115_1_Ash.pdf" rel="nofollow">here is the link</a> to his excellent article on the purpose of marriage. His two books (Married for God and Sex in the Service of God) are even better.<br /><br />Secondly - with regards to your reference to Psalm 68. Praise God that he settles the solitary in a home! I suggest, however, that again context might be helpful in your biblical exegesis. Particularly when it comes to asking what home (or if you prefer what family) is on view there.<br /><br />Thirdly - <br /><br /><i>However, you don't seem interested in rethinking any of this sex-negative nonsense and I shudder to think of how you'll minister to the young on matters of sexuality.</i><br /><br />I do not view sex negatively. That's the last time I am going to reassert that. Please stop misrepresenting me.<br /><br />As for my ministry to the young (or in fact anyone), if you are concerned for them then please do pray for them, and also for me. I serve in full-time vocational ministry and since I (like you) will not be perfect until Christ returns I need all the prayer I can get.<br /><br />I'm done on this thread.<br /><br /><i>“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; <b>that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor</b>, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God”<br /><br />(1Th 4:3-5 ESV)</i>Daninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-66208097727525789932009-10-03T00:57:48.307-05:002009-10-03T00:57:48.307-05:00Anon,
Alright then, Dani. I shall leave off with ...Anon,<br /><br /><i>Alright then, Dani. I shall leave off with a collection of statements, made by you on another blog, that should leave no doubt to anyone (except one in particular who I shall not name) that anything you say about the bible and sex should definitely be taken with a grain of salt:</i><br /><br />With all due respect, that is not an argument. Normally, when you say that someone's interpretation should be taken with a grain of salt, you then go on to show <i>why</i> it is that their interpretation must be taken with a grain of salt. Just simply putting it up and going, "Ha, ha, how funny," is not only not an argument, it is childish.<br /><br />Even worse, some of the interpretations that she gave are from some of the best New Testament scholars alive today, such as Gordon Fee, Craig Blomberg, and Richard Hays.<br /><br />Also, BTW, you might want to look at the context of Psalm 68:6. Simply read the previous verse. It is talking about orphans and widows, people who have no family. It has nothing to do with the lonliness associated with singleness. It is talking about someone who has been abandoned, or lost their family.<br /><br />Also, in terms of what a text ultimately means, I don't think any of us bases our decision how people interpreted these texts in the past. You can find old interpretations of passages that are just plain stupid. Go read any interpretation of scripture by Origin [who lived from A.D.185-254], and you will read some of the most rediculious stuff you have ever read.<br /><br />And, conversely, up until just before the time of Granville Sharp, no one believed that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 taught the Diety of Christ. However, it is now firmly established that these texts do teach the Diety of Christ.<br /><br />Therefore, you have to use discernment, and not just eat something up just because it is "the way things always were."<br /><br />God Bless,<br />AdamPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-26746476007217467232009-10-02T23:39:40.118-05:002009-10-02T23:39:40.118-05:00Oh yeah, and I forgot this one:
"Paul’s conc...Oh yeah, and I forgot this one:<br /><br />"Paul’s concession here in 1 Cor 7:9 is directly addressed at widows - those whose previous sexual activity in marriage potentially leads to a greater possibility of lack of self-control in the face of temptation. "<br /><br />Although I'm sure you'll have at least one fan of that one (no names mentioned).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-84965753714066072692009-10-02T23:28:28.535-05:002009-10-02T23:28:28.535-05:00Alright then, Dani. I shall leave off with a coll...Alright then, Dani. I shall leave off with a collection of statements, made by you on another blog, that should leave no doubt to anyone (except one in particular who I shall not name) that anything you say about the bible and sex should definitely be taken with a grain of salt:<br /><br />"This is where I think we have inherited (or developed) an unhelpful theology of marriage. Marriage was not created for sex (ie. people should have a spouse to avoid getting caught up in sexual immorality). Sex was created for marriage… in order that men and women might fulfil the creation mandate. In fact I’d go so far as to say that marriage wasn’t created to meet our needs at all."<br /><br />"Marriage was instituted not to meet our human needs, but to enable humans to fulfil God’s mandate to them (Genesis 1:28 and 2:15) and to point towards the ultimate and real marriage between Christ and the church." <br /><br />"these things are not what we ‘need’ as humans – if they were then marriage would need to continue in heaven."<br /><br />"Yet too often 'being aflame with passion' is equated with merely having a sex drive (as per Mohler's claim that extended celibacy is 'battling our Creator's reproductive designs')...Yet to understand exactly what Paul means by his concession in 1 Cor 7:9 we only have to look to the first part of the verse - 'But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry'...Being aflame with passion = being unable to exercise self-control. It does not = having a sex drive."<br /><br />"I am persuaded that a proper exegesis of 1 Cor 7:2... is not that ‘every man should find himself a wife and (and vice versa) so they can avoid sexual immorality’. But rather ‘that every husband should ‘have’ (ie. have sexual relations) with his own wife (and every wife with her own husband) . That is, v2 is saying the same thing as v3, and expanded upon in the following verses."<br /><br /><br />And btw, I did get through to that link to Ash's book and read his piece that denies the loneliness of Adam (or anyone else) as feature in God's reasons for creating Eve, and thus marriage. To that, I would direct you both to Psalm 68:6, which states "God sets the lonely in families". So I think God cares a little bit more about loneliness of the single than you guys give him credit for. As such, I would drop that book like a hot potato and explore other writers on the topic (avoiding all manner of pompous Brit-speak). <br /><br />Anyways, these passages have been used for centuries to affirm the practical importance and common ordinariness of sex and marriage. But somehow, you've been imparted quite an number of novel interpretations that seem to go out of their way to diminish both. However, you don't seem interested in rethinking any of this sex-negative nonsense and I shudder to think of how you'll minister to the young on matters of sexuality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-41997075094803225152009-10-02T03:26:37.039-05:002009-10-02T03:26:37.039-05:00Excuse me? Are you suggesting that no longer being...<i>Excuse me? Are you suggesting that no longer being slaves to sin means that the sexual longing of those who are single happens to be something sinful, that they must sanctified from? There is no need to be sanctified from something divinely designed (designed to motivate you towards marriage).</i><br /><br />Ummmm. No. I didn't suggest anything of the sort.<br /><br />As for the rest of your last post...<br /><br />We've been here and had this discussion before. From the other comments on this thread there appears little need for me to continue to defend my position as I seem to be on the same page as the other contributors anyway.<br /><br />As such, because our theological differences on this matter are so obviously irreconcilable there seems little point continuing this discussion. I'll leave off on this thread by encouraging you to continue to read 1 Cor 7 in the context of the rest of the Pauline corpus, and indeed the rest of Scripture.Daninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-21639191336288972792009-10-02T01:45:36.842-05:002009-10-02T01:45:36.842-05:00"We are no longer slaves to sin. We are dead ..."We are no longer slaves to sin. We are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit living in us and we have been freed to be slaves to God."<br /><br />Excuse me? Are you suggesting that no longer being slaves to sin means that the sexual longing of those who are single happens to be something sinful, that they must sanctified from? There is no need to be sanctified from something divinely designed (designed to motivate you towards marriage).<br /><br />"Yes Paul made the concession that it is better to marry than to burn."<br /><br />Yes he did.<br /><br />"But numerous times in that same chapter he exhorts the Corinthians to deliberately, actively, intentionally exercise self-control."<br /><br />Oh really? Let's look at what Paul really says about sexual self control in 1 Cor 7:<br /><br />5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your ***lack of self-control***<br /><br />9But if they ***cannot control themselves***, they should marry<br /><br />36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants.<br /><br />But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. <br /><br />When it comes to sexual self-control, Paul acknowledges the lack of it (and its remedy: sex within marriage) much more than of the kind of sanctified celibacy you talk about.<br /><br />"Elsewhere in Corinthians he talks about how he has to discipline his own body. And in other letters he reminds his readers that self-control is a gift of the Spirit."<br /><br />That's right -- he acknowedged himself as having a gift of self-control, and made it clear that not everyone is gifted in the same way -- particularly when it comes to sex, which is frought with biologically based individual differences. Certainly, self-control is a spiritual essential for all believers, as sexual abstinence is a behavioral essential without marriage, requiring . But Paul was much more practical than you're willing to admit. <br /><br />"Your constant refrain that most Christians don't exercise self-control (and that Paul had resigned himself to that) flies in the face of New Testament theology."<br /><br />Not where he talks about normative sexual self-control. If most Christians remain single for long enough, they will have sex out of wedlock, just as the hungry will steal food if they have to. That fact might make you uncomfortable, but it's true. <br /><br />"That is just so out of step with the broad sweep of NT theology."<br /><br />And what you're presenting about it is so out of step with the actual text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-44334785259317517432009-10-02T00:30:19.076-05:002009-10-02T00:30:19.076-05:00But in the long term they won't -- and certain...<i>But in the long term they won't -- and certainly Paul never expected that most would...It is obvious from his writings on marriage and singleness that he knew what most people would end up doing, and so he recommends the former, and the latter under certain conditions.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't think 'it is obvious' at all. In fact that statement flies in the face of the rest of the Pauline corpus. <br /><br />ML got it spot on. We are no longer slaves to sin. We are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit living in us and we have been freed to be slaves to God.<br /><br /><b>Yes</b> Paul made the concession that it is better to marry than to burn. But numerous times in that same chapter he exhorts the Corinthians to deliberately, actively, intentionally exercise self-control. Elsewhere in Corinthians he talks about how he has to discipline his own body. And in other letters he reminds his readers that self-control is a gift of the Spirit.<br /><br />Your constant refrain that most Christians don't exercise self-control (and that Paul had resigned himself to that) flies in the face of New Testament theology. As ML said - we are no longer slaves to the old man. God is sanctifying his children so that they will become what they already are in his sight.<br /><br />Will Christians still sin at various points in and various ways. Tragically yes (and hence <b>some</b> will indeed sin sexually). But we do not live our lives as people enslaved to it any longer. And yet the whole basis of your argument seems to be based in the idea that we must resign ourselves to the fact that the majority of Christian men and women will sin sexually. And so we should all just plan for the worst case scenario now. <br /><br />That is just so out of step with the broad sweep of NT theology.<br /><br />Of course we have had this discussion at length before and I doubt we are going to move further towards any sort of agreement this time either.Daninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-41888625698832350292009-10-01T20:27:27.538-05:002009-10-01T20:27:27.538-05:00"I would agree with you that he is saying not..."I would agree with you that he is saying not everyone can accept the teaching of singleness, but I would also argue that in his response to the disciples, he is saying that not everyone can accept the teaching of marriage"<br /><br />Christ starkly acknowledges that some are involuntarily single, due to birth defects (or other natural phenomena?) and the actions of others. Other than that, you have the options to remain single "for the sake of the kingdom" -- he really doesn't offer any other options. There's nothing in the scriptures that validates the idea of staying single to pursue your own pleasures at your own leisure. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that our modern conception of singleness is unprecedented.<br /><br />"There is. However, the matter is not for the church to decide."<br /><br />But they do need to discern quality, especially when it comes to making decisions about things like appointing leaders, etc. Also, the teaching of wisdom does involve learning how to recognize and emulate quality. And no, I'm not saying that all single leaders are inferior to all married leaders.<br /><br />"but I disagree with the idea that marriage is somehow the superior choice. As to receiving less fruits and recognition? From who? Men?"<br /><br />I was talking about the fruits that come from caring for the kingdom, which is essentially about caring for others, be it your family or those you minister to in other ways. In no way am I saying that this should only be done for the sake of getting recognition from others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-71227665951437908612009-10-01T20:27:13.087-05:002009-10-01T20:27:13.087-05:00"I'll take a closer look at the verses at..."I'll take a closer look at the verses at a later time, but I am going to point out the faulty logic (at least to me it is). "Can most singles contain?" The short answer is... yes."<br /><br />But in the long term they won't -- and certainly Paul never expected that most would. And that is why he immediately suggests in the first few verses of 1 cor 7 that it's good "not to touch a woman", "2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband", and again, verse 8-9 where he says that if you cannot contain, get married. Paul's recommendations to remain single were made only to those who were gifted with enough self-control and desire for undistracted devotion to the Lord, the "present distress" and "the time is short" removing any assumption that this would be something that most could do for an extended period of time.<br /><br />"We read Paul's statement of (which I'll paraphrase here from Romans) "I do that which I don't want to do, oh wretched man that I am!" while ignoring the context that this is before Jesus Christ came on the scene. The simple fact is that now we have a choice whether or not to act on those impulses...Just as Paul chose not to act on those impulses."<br /><br />Romans 7:15 (my favorite tongue twister!) does not mean that bodily drives and our response to them has now changed because of Christ is now on the scene. If anything, it shows that Paul was human and he did cave in to temptation (although in this passage, we don't necessarily know that what he's doing is something sexual).<br /><br />Certainly, self-control is a spiritual virtue that all believers should cultivate, but clearly Paul does not want the masses he is addressing to be vulnerable to unnecessary temptation. It is obvious from his writings on marriage and singleness that he knew what most people would end up doing, and so he recommends the former, and the latter under certain conditions.<br /><br />"Whether or not most singles will choose to remain celibate is not for me to say and is an entirely different question."<br /><br />So people aren't supposed to talk about whether modern expectations of singles are feasible and how well (or not well) they are truly managing with them?<br /><br />"Since Christ has given us freedom, it is not for me to decide for another man. As for myself, I would prefer marriage because I myself would not be able to control it."<br /><br />So no one close to you should be able to challenge you, if it appears that you aren't controlling it. Being your brother's keeper applies to other things, just not the choice to remain single, regardless of how you're handling it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-45742838620585299152009-10-01T17:43:25.542-05:002009-10-01T17:43:25.542-05:00"Jesus himself admitted that not everyone cou...<i>"Jesus himself admitted that not everyone could accept the teaching of marriage"<br /><br />Wrong. He said TWICE in Matthew 19 that not everyone can accept the teaching of making yourself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.<br /></i><br /><br />I would agree with you that he is saying not everyone can accept the teaching of singleness, but I would also argue that in his response to the disciples, he is saying that not everyone can accept the teaching of marriage, judging by what I read of the exchange. I would submit for some others here to read Matthew 19 and see if their findings coincide with mine.<br /><br /><i> What a black and white overreaction! No one is disputing basic respect and dignity in the treatment of all human beings, or freedom in the path to walk one path or another in regards to marriage or singleness. No one has called singleness a sin here. </i> <br /><br />Is it? As to what I see of Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken and others, it would seem I am not overreacting. I need only point to the numerous statements here and elsewhere. Forgive my bluntness, but you would either have to be blind or ignorant to miss it, so I'm simply not going to cite the numerous examples here. <br /><br /><i> The issue is whether there's any such thing as quality and excellence, as far as walking one path or another. </i><br /><br />There is. However, the matter is not for the church to decide. It is putting itself the the place of judge, a matter that is accorded to the Lamb himself.<br /><br /><i> The scriptures are not indifferent to matters of quality and excellence. Take for example the description of how deacons are supposed to live their lives in 1 Tim 3. Proverbs 31 also describes an exceptional wife with a husband who is "respected at the city gates". I suppose a believer may have the freedom to choose a less excellent path, but don't complain when you receive less fruits and less recognition.</i><br /><br />I agree that the scriptures are not indifferent, but I disagree with the idea that marriage is somehow the superior choice. As to receiving less fruits and recognition? From who? Men? I'm not looking for that. Since I appeal to God as the judge, it is he I am most concerned about. Not that we completely disregard the opinion of man... but neither do we make it an idol.<br /><br /><i> You would have no problem judging some marriages as more or less excellent than others, would you? Now why would you suspend that judgement for singleness, as if one Paul's path of singleness (marked by service and self-sacrifice) is no better than any other? There is more service and sacrifice taking place in the average marriage than the average singleness you see in the church today. See my post on the thread after this one.</i> <br /><br />You again presume I wish to judge. This is a place only accorded to the Lamb himself. It is he who judges. Not I. And not the church. Again, we are trying to prescribe a "one size fits all" mentality.Mordecai Lamenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741226910144102413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-41648893715609679722009-10-01T17:42:10.967-05:002009-10-01T17:42:10.967-05:00Paul said that he wished that all could abide as h...<i>Paul said that he wished that all could abide as he does. The context is one of self-control in the absence of sex (see previous verses about husbands and wives abstaining for times of prayer, but briefly so that they would not leave each other vulnerable to temptation. See also verse 8-9 where Paul says that it's good to remain as you are (at least for the "present distress", v. 26), but if you cannot contain it is better to marry. Do you think most singles today manage to "contain"?</i><br /><br />I'll take a closer look at the verses at a later time, but I am going to point out the faulty logic (at least to me it is). "Can most singles contain?" The short answer is... yes. The problem with most reasoning from the marriage mandators camp is that we are a slave to out impulses. We read Paul's statement of (which I'll paraphrase here from Romans) "I do that which I don't want to do, oh wretched man that I am!" while ignoring the context that this is before Jesus Christ came on the scene. The simple fact is that now we have a choice whether or not to act on those impulses. With freedom comes responsibility. Again, I come back to the point that we are free men because Christ set us free. So to answer the question... yes, we have a choice in the matter and are no longer slaves to the old man. We choose freely. I will concede that most of us desire marriage and I will also say that marriage is a wonderful thing. Where I draw the line is where people want to exalt marriage over singleness and make it the standard de facto of how "real Christians" live their lives. Further, I will hold two examples up of two men who did not act on their impulses: Jesus Christ and Paul. Remember, Jesus Christ was tempted in EVERY way. He could choose not to act on those impulses. Just as Paul chose not to act on those impulses. Since we worship a Jesus Christ and accept his resurrection power on earth... and since we have gained the power of the Holy Spirit then YES... we can choose not to act on those impulses just as Christ and Paul chose not to. <br /><br />I would kindly remind you if you do find fault with my answer that you are asking about ability. Whether or not most singles will choose to remain celibate is not for me to say and is an entirely different question. Since Christ has given us freedom, it is not for me to decide for another man. As for myself, I would prefer marriage because I myself would not be able to control it. I realize this is a choice. I am expressing a personal preference. That is different than most Marriage mandators who prescribe a "one size fits all" solution. Since the church has been presented both options by Paul and Jesus, who are "the foundation" and "the cornerstone" respectively, as indicated in Ephesians 2, I find it unwise to tinker with either.<br /><br /><br />More to come...Mordecai Lamenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741226910144102413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-445414400251663532009-10-01T12:42:44.495-05:002009-10-01T12:42:44.495-05:00"Did Paul not express a personal preference t..."Did Paul not express a personal preference that he wishes all men could remain single as he was?"<br /><br />Paul said that he wished that all could abide as he does. The context is one of self-control in the absence of sex (see previous verses about husbands and wives abstaining for times of prayer, but briefly so that they would not leave each other vulnerable to temptation. See also verse 8-9 where Paul says that it's good to remain as you are (at least for the "present distress", v. 26), but if you cannot contain it is better to marry. Do you think most singles today manage to "contain"? <br /><br />"Jesus himself admitted that not everyone could accept the teaching of marriage"<br /><br />Wrong. He said TWICE in Matthew 19 that not everyone can accept the teaching of making yourself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.<br /><br />"Because you seem to fail to understand that A. Human beings have a dignity assigned to them which no one except the creator himself has a right to rescind" and B. "It is for freedom the Christ set us free..."..."Using your logic, you can only be in a state of "actively looking for Mr/Mrs. Right" or you can be single for the sake of the kingdom. Anything other than those two is "sin." <br /><br />What a black and white overreaction! No one is disputing basic respect and dignity in the treatment of all human beings, or freedom in the path to walk one path or another in regards to marriage or singleness. No one has called singleness a sin here. The issue is whether there's any such thing as quality and excellence, as far as walking one path or another.<br /><br />The scriptures are not indifferent to matters of quality and excellence. Take for example the description of how deacons are supposed to live their lives in 1 Tim 3. Proverbs 31 also describes an exceptional wife with a husband who is "respected at the city gates". I suppose a believer may have the freedom to choose a less excellent path, but don't complain when you receive less fruits and less recognition. <br /><br />You would have no problem judging some marriages as more or less excellent than others, would you? Now why would you suspend that judgement for singleness, as if one Paul's path of singleness (marked by service and self-sacrifice) is no better than any other? There is more service and sacrifice taking place in the average marriage than the average singleness you see in the church today. See my post on the thread after this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-45699353363951812612009-10-01T11:11:43.217-05:002009-10-01T11:11:43.217-05:00"Rhetorical? So, let me get this straight... ..."Rhetorical? So, let me get this straight... as a human being, fear of the Lord is rhetoric?"<br /><br />Cool your jets, ML.<br /><br />No one is disputing fear of the Lord or that "fear of the Lord is the ***beginning*** of wisdom."<br /><br />What's rhetorical is the notion that this internal fear and wisdom are sufficient as criteria for quality manhood or womanhood. If fear and wisdom don't manifest in how you live your life as an adult, then something's missing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-51256033588236265032009-10-01T07:42:22.044-05:002009-10-01T07:42:22.044-05:00Good stuff MLGood stuff MLLearnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089164231281806023noreply@blogger.com