Here's something I recently wrote to a Christian struggling with pornography and assurance of salvation. I'm posting it with his permission, and I hope it will be helpful to other people. If anybody wants to add to what I've said below, you can do that in the comments section of this thread if you want. It could be helpful to this individual and others looking on if those of you who have anything to add will do so. Here's what I wrote:
>>>>>
When the issue of pornography comes up, people typically look to those who have been involved in using pornography to some extent for counsel about how to overcome the problem. There's some value in getting advice from people who have been involved in a sin (whether pornography or something else), but there's also value in hearing from people who have avoided the sin. I'm in the latter category, probably partly because I was warned of the dangers of pornography from such an early age. I don't have experiential knowledge of what it's like to be in your situation. You may want to get some advice from somebody who has had that experience and has overcome it. But I think there's also value in getting advice from people who have avoided pornography, even though our culture doesn't show much interest in getting their advice.
I won't repeat the most common recommendations about how to handle a situation like yours (having people in your life who will hold you accountable, using blocking programs on your computer, etc.). There's some value in those things, and one or more of them may work well for you. But I'll focus on some factors that, from what I've seen, tend to be mentioned less often, if at all. I've never had a person in my life holding me accountable regarding pornography, and I've never used blocking programs for any computer I've owned. But I've had other factors in my life that I consider more significant.
Put first things first. Start with God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10), and loving God is the first commandment (Matthew 22:37-39). Study and memorize passages of scripture about the greatness of God, including his being the source of our greatest joy (e.g., Psalm 16:11, Jeremiah 2:13, Romans 8:31-32, Ephesians 3:8).
Think about the negative consequences of sexual sin (the day of judgment, what legacy you're building up, how sexual sin harms other people, how your desires for sexual sin are coming from a fallen and decaying body, what the women you desire will look like when they're older, what their fathers and other individuals in their lives would think of how you're treating them, etc.). Determine which of those negative concepts are most effective in motivating you to avoid sexual sin, and use those concepts in your struggle accordingly.
Think about the logic involved in the struggle with pornography. It's not just a matter of biology, emotions, and such. It's also logical. Get the logic right. Establish a framework of reasoning in which your emotions, desires, etc. can mature. Recognize that God is the creator of sex and other forms of pleasure and how irrational it would be to think that sexual pleasure, especially in a sinful form, would be equal to or greater than God and the pleasures of faithfulness to him. Sexual sin has some advantages over faithfulness to God, such as producing better feelings in some contexts, but is worse overall. Instead of looking only at the advantages of sexual sin, take the entire situation into account. Think about the logic of God's primacy and getting the most pleasure over the long run by being faithful to him. Use that logic as a weapon against sin.
In addition to studying the relevant portions of scripture, read a lot of material from extrabiblical authors who are effective at addressing these issues (and watch their videos, listen to their podcasts, etc.). John Piper is a good source to go to. And he often cites individuals from previous generations who held similar views (e.g., Jonathan Edwards).
Ephesians 5 says a lot about sexual and romantic issues, both inside and outside of marriage. And one of the most important components to fighting pornography and other sins is found in that passage, yet it doesn't get much attention in our culture. Make the most of your time (Ephesians 5:16). How you use your time is important, in the context of pornography and in general. Just after writing one of the greatest chapters in the Bible expressing the greatness of God and the gospel (Ephesians 3), Paul tells the Ephesians to live in a manner worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:1). Seek great things that are worthy of the great God who called you and redeemed you with so great a salvation. Free yourself from the trivialities that most people spend far too much time on (trivial and vulgar television programs and movies, trivial and vulgar music, sports, etc.). Because of your problem with pornography, it's not just a matter of using your time in a better way, but also avoiding influences that would encourage you to sin in the context of pornography in particular. When you don't watch the most popular television programs and movies, you aren't missing much. When you give up something like sports or video games, you aren't giving up much, and what you're gaining is worth far more. Weed out your life, and plant a lot of good seeds. Line up so many good works to be involved with that you have more than enough to fill up your time (the study of scripture, prayer, involvement in the local church, reading significant books outside of scripture, apologetics, studying church history, memorizing Christian music, reading the church fathers, etc.).
If you aim for nothing, you'll accomplish nothing. Determine what sphere of work God is calling you to, set as great objectives as you can in that context, and run that course with all your might (1 Corinthians 9:24). You're a unique individual, so your calling won't be entirely identical to anybody else's, but find some people in history you can emulate and be encouraged by. Think about the greatness of the work that needs to be done in the world and cultivate your passion for doing that work. Have your love for God and for other people growing as pornography keeps getting more and more distant from your life.
Faith implies repentance, and God sanctifies those he justifies. Believers are repentant, and they're sanctified in this life to some extent. But the application of those general principles can vary a lot from one individual to another. David had a long season of sin, involving some of the worst kinds of sin, before he repented after his encounter with Nathan. Samson had many seasons of sin in his life, but the way his life ended and the comments about him in Hebrews 11 suggest that he was a believer. Adrian Rogers preached a sermon on Samson many years ago that I recommend that you listen to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRZHlYF-ug
Another individual to consider is Solomon. He was involved in lengthy periods of sin, yet many Christians think he was saved or at least that there's a good chance he was.
Paul refers to the Corinthian Christians as "infants in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1), yet they were in Christ. Paul had been interacting with them for years prior to that time, and even the latest sins they were committing had to have been going on long enough for Paul to have heard about those sins, decided how to respond, written his letter, and had it delivered to them. The Corinthians hadn't merely been involved in a brief moment of sin. It was much worse than that.
Assurance is multifaceted. It comes from more than one source. Right behavior in contexts like pornography is one component, but not the only one. If past faith produces current peace (Romans 5:1) and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9), you have to take your past faith into account. You can't just look at the worst parts of your life, like pornography use, and ignore everything else. You have to take everything into account. The fact that your use of pornography casts doubt on the genuineness of your faith doesn't change the fact that your pornography use and other sins are accompanied elsewhere in your life by evidence of salvation. Just as it would make no sense to look only at the positive aspects of your life while ignoring the negatives (like pornography use), it likewise would make no sense to look only at the negatives.
The Biblical passages about sinners not inheriting the kingdom of God assume that there aren't any qualifiers involved, such as faith, periods of repentance, a desire to change, and good works. If there are such qualifiers accompanying your sins, then your situation isn't characterized only by those sins.
It may help you if you replace pornography with some other sin when you think about issues of assurance. I don't know of any Christian who's entirely overcome sins like pride, impatience, and unkindness. I suspect that, at least for the large majority of Christians, their struggles with those sins are lifelong. How many Christians get through even a single day without violating the greatest commandments multiple times (Matthew 22:37-39)? As James reminds us, "we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2).
Scripture often refers to how we grow as believers. We gradually mature. We don't go from infancy to our elderly years in an hour or a day. It's a much longer process. We see that reflected in Paul's letters, for example. We see different churches he writes to at different stages of maturity and struggling with different sins or having accomplished different victories. The Romans are at a different place than the Corinthians, who are at a different place than the Philippians, who are at a different place than the Galatians, etc. Your struggle with pornography may go away rapidly, but it also may not. (I think that sort of struggle usually doesn't.) Your progress doesn't have to be perfect in order to be progress.
I'm praying for you.
>>>>>
Pages
▼
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Struggling With Pornography And Assurance Of Salvation
I just posted this on Facebook. Anybody who wants to add comments here can do so, or you can post on my Facebook page.
Thanks, Jason. I think this is a very helpful read.
ReplyDelete1. I'm someone who has struggled with pornography in the past. And I'd second what Jason has said in this post.
2. In addition, I'd recommend the book Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace">Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace (Heath Lambert). Tim Challies has likewise recommended it. Same with Desiring God. Among many others.
The book offers those struggling with pornography the greater - indeed, the greatest and most satisfying - vision in life in living for the Lord. Otherwise, like Jason has pointed out, if we aim for nothing, we will achieve nothing. We each need to have a purpose for which to live. Like a soldier with a mission to accomplish and a general to lead. Otherwise, we'll be like an unanchored, unbuoyed, compass-less ship drifting about the sea, aimlessly wandering from port to port, unsure and uncertain about where to go or what to do in life. That's no way to live.
The book helps Christians steadily overcome our desires so they're increasingly tasting and seeing that the Lord is good while porn is not (cf. Thomas Chalmers' "The Explosive Power of a New Affection"). As C.S. Lewis noted in his "The Weight of Glory": "It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
The book has no qualms about calling porn out as the filth it is but likewise applies the balm of forgiveness over and over again so we don't despair and fall into the devil's snares.
It has plenty of practical tips too (e.g. use a computer in a public room in your apartment or home; have a disciplined daily or regular routine since a disordered life leaves holes for temptations to sin to creep in; if possible spend more time with fellow Christians who are good friends since we need community and too much solitary isolation can make us feel lonely and overwhelming loneliness can be another avenue for temptations to enter in).
And it talks about the assurance of salvation, though it goes without saying we won't have assurance when we are sinning.
All in all, I'd highly recommend reading it.
3. Triablogue has a post about the grounds of salvation (John Frame) that is an aid to having an assurance of salvation.
"2. In addition, I'd recommend the book Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace">Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace (Heath Lambert). Tim Challies has likewise recommended it. Same with Desiring God. Among many others."
ReplyDeleteI absolutely abhor that book. I was gifted it as a means of fighting my own porn addiction. It didn't help at all. Like most books for Christian men addicted to porn, it’s not biblical, it slams husbands who are stuck in marriages with frigid wives, and it nowhere tells the reader that their means of potentially avoiding temptation from the devil himself is marital sex (as per I Corinthians 7). Do not buy it. It will be of no use to you unless you’re already married with a wife who has sex with you whenever you want. Barring that, if you’re single, you need social competence training so you can get married. Finally Free has no such training to offer. Yes, a lot of ministries and emasculated males recommend it, and they’re all wrong to do so, because the book offers false hope. It says you can be sexually pure and sanctified whether you’re having sex or not- that’s a lie, it has always been a lie, and everyone who recommends that book is only making the problem worse.
Let’s be blunt: The joys of heaven and forgiveness do jack-squat for a deprived man. It doesn’t matter if he’s a Christian who knows that one day he’ll be in heaven. That couldn’t be less relevant. Expectations of heavenly rewards does not evaporate your penis’s need for friction and stimulation. Reading the Bible a lot won’t make you stop wanting to squeeze a woman’s breast or buttocks. God’s primacy, rewards in the after-life, it’s all irrelevant to men who are starving for sex. They will masturbate and they will look at porn, because all these aspirations of focusing on our lofty moral goals won't remove their sexual needs and desires.
Why is that important to realize? Because when deprived Christian men find that they're still unable to stop looking at porn and/or masturbating, they assume it's because they really are just that sinful. They really are evil. Then, to no one's surprise, they struggle with assurance of salvation. Well, how could they not? They've been told if they focus on God's primacy and so on, then they'll have greater success (or complete success) in their battle against a porn addiction. If they fail, well, either their method was wrong, or they really are just evil, and nobody ever questions the method (or, in the case of Finally Free, the book they were given). They never consider they and their peers were looking at this whole issue the wrong way. They always come around to questioning their own salvation, and hence, they're no better off than they were before.
Oddly enough, I think I'm one of the few men who can read the following paragraphs from this article and feel genuinely encouraged.
Delete"Assurance is multifaceted. It comes from more than one source. Right behavior in contexts like pornography is one component, but not the only one. If past faith produces current peace (Romans 5:1) and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9), you have to take your past faith into account. You can't just look at the worst parts of your life, like pornography use, and ignore everything else. You have to take everything into account. The fact that your use of pornography casts doubt on the genuineness of your faith doesn't change the fact that your pornography use and other sins are accompanied elsewhere in your life by evidence of salvation. Just as it would make no sense to look only at the positive aspects of your life while ignoring the negatives (like pornography use), it likewise would make no sense to look only at the negatives.
The Biblical passages about sinners not inheriting the kingdom of God assume that there aren't any qualifiers involved, such as faith, periods of repentance, a desire to change, and good works. If there are such qualifiers accompanying your sins, then your situation isn't characterized only by those sins.
It may help you if you replace pornography with some other sin when you think about issues of assurance. I don't know of any Christian who's entirely overcome sins like pride, impatience, and unkindness. I suspect that, at least for the large majority of Christians, their struggles with those sins are lifelong. How many Christians get through even a single day without violating the greatest commandments multiple times (Matthew 22:37-39)? As James reminds us, "we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2)."
I LOVE these paragraphs. They are correct and biblically accurate and should be incredibly encouraging for Christian men who have no expectation of marital sex in the near future. But if you believe that coming to a logical understanding of the greater value of faithfulness to God is going to help you ignore the itch of your sex drive, you're naive. Get married, have sex. Simple as that. All these other things have their place, but they were never meant to substitute for sexual intercourse.
Prince Asbel
Delete1. So, Prince Asbel, I'm not exactly sure what you really think about the book? Your words are too vague or unclear. And you're inexplicably passive with your feelings here, when I was hoping you'd have no qualms about telling me your true feelings!
2. On a serious note, I agree with a lot of what you say.
On the one hand, I agree the book is imperfect, though I'm sure that's putting it far too lightly in your view.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd consign the book to the pits of hell like you might.
3. In any case, different people are helped by different things. The book is just one recommendation among (I'm sure) many other possible recommendations.
If the book helps someone, then great. If the book doesn't help, or even hurts, then toss it aside.
More likely I suspect most will find some things useful and other things useless in the book. People can separate the wheat from the chaff on their own.
4. In addition, I'm not sure your advice to just get married and have sex to overcome pornography is necessarily good advice. For instance, I know of married men who engage in regular sexual intercourse with their wives who still struggle with pornography. So there has to be more to it than "Get married, have sex. Simple as that."
That's not say the your advice wouldn't be helpful for a subset of people. I just highly doubt there's a single, one size fits all solution to porn addiction.
5. Again, I don't think it's as "simple" as you make it out to be. At least not for most people. Rather I think porn addiction is more akin to addiction to alcohol or drugs.
Some can overcome their addictions entirely, while others can't.
Some aren't ever entirely free their entire lives. Porn might hound them like alcohol hounds an ex-alcoholic who sees a bar and is tempted to enter therein and imbibe. He might not enter, but he may always feel the tug to enter. He may always hear the soft whispering and gentle singing to draw him in like the sirens tried to do with Odysseus, even if he (hopefully) never gives in.
As such, I think we need a multifaceted approach to deal with porn addiction. And I think the book is a decent starting point, though I freely admit there are other places to start as well.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd consign the book to the pits of hell like you might.
ReplyDeleteI decry any book that promises false hope to Christians wracked by guilt and discouragement.
More likely I suspect most will find some things useful and other things useless in the book. People can separate the wheat from the chaff on their own.
If they could, then books like Finally Free would never sell as well as they did. The men who read them are already too ashamed to view such books with a skeptical eye. Consequently, bad books are selling well, and those pathetic sacks don't even know it.
4. In addition, I'm not sure your advice to just get married and have sex to overcome pornography is necessarily good advice.
I think it's great advice. The Scriptures say:
I Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps 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.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
I tend to think advice taken directly from Scripture is very good advice. And notice something: This is NOT the advice given by Heath Lambert or 99% of preachers/authors who try to help men stop looking at porn. They'll recommend anything under the sun- accountability partners, porn filters, bouncing the eyes, focusing on heavenly rewards, seeing the women in porn videos as some daddy's little girl, blah blah blah. Anything in the world but Paul's own advice taken straight from I Corinthians 7.
For instance, I know of married men who engage in regular sexual intercourse with their wives who still struggle with pornography.
I'm sure you know OF them. The fact that they are a small sliver of the Christian male population should tell you that that's not really relevant. For them, porn filters or accountability partners MIGHT be helpful so long as they have sex as often as they want.
But, of course, you didn't say they got sex as often as they want. You just said, “regular sexual intercourse,” which is vague and unspecific. Most married men want sex 2-3 times a week. Most women can live with only having sex once or twice a month. If they have sex once a month consistently, then that qualifies as regular, but it sure isn't enough for the husband.
Then there's husbands lying out of shame that their wives have done nothing wrong. That's a whole other complicated issue to untangle.
So there has to be more to it than "Get married, have sex. Simple as that."
To be sure. For example, most Christian women are taught that they can refuse to have sex with their husbands for a variety of reasons. So, the Christian man has to make sure his bride understands that she'll have sex with him whenever he wants. No debating, no questions asked, no long-lists of excuses or exceptions. If she refuses to accept that, he needs to marry someone else.
That's not say the your advice wouldn't be helpful for a subset of people. I just highly doubt there's a single, one size fits all solution to porn addiction.
DeleteOne size fits most. I'd rather give a one-size fits all to Christian male porn addicts that is at least BIBLICAL in nature, rather than all this gay homo wishy-washy idealistic nonsense that ignores men's basic needs.
5. Again, I don't think it's as "simple" as you make it out to be. At least not for most people. Rather I think porn addiction is more akin to addiction to alcohol or drugs.
Then you're thinking about this in more wrong ways than I thought.
Men do not "need" drugs or alcohol, but they do need sex. A man's attraction to porn is a mixture of natural needs and artificially created desire. Just as you wouldn't prohibit a man from drinking clean fresh water just because he got hooked on drinking from the sewer, you likewise don't ignore a man's sexual needs when you try to help him fight his porn addiction.
As such, I think we need a multifaceted approach to deal with porn addiction. And I think the book is a decent starting point, though I freely admit there are other places to start as well.
Having marital sex is the biblical goal. Finally Free denies that. Therefore, it is not a decent starting point, mid-point, or end-point. Case closed.
Prince Asbel
Delete"I tend to think advice taken directly from Scripture is very good advice."
This would be more convincing if you developed your case for it like a good commentary on 1 Cor 7 would (e.g. Fee, Rosner).
"And notice something: This is NOT the advice given by Heath Lambert or 99% of preachers/authors who try to help men stop looking at porn. They'll recommend anything under the sun- accountability partners, porn filters, bouncing the eyes, focusing on heavenly rewards, seeing the women in porn videos as some daddy's little girl, blah blah blah. Anything in the world but Paul's own advice taken straight from I Corinthians 7."
1. A big reason for this is because the book isn't solely written to single or unmarried people. It's likewise written to people who are married who struggle with porn.
2. Did you even read his book? I doubt it now, because that's precisely what Lambert does advise Christians: to get married and have sex within marriage. Either you didn't read his book or you somehow missed it despite it being quite clear and evident. For example, here's what Lambert says near the end of chapter 6:
Marriage is wonderful for many reasons, not least because it is the only acceptable environment for sexual intimacy. For this reason, the apostle Paul tells single people that if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). Paul does not mean that marriage is the cure for lust. It isn’t. He means that marriage is the only legitimate relationship for those with appropriate sexual desires. If you are experiencing God-given sexual desires, a consideration of Proverbs 5 should encourage you to pursue marriage to a godly woman in a wise and careful way. Consider whether being married is truly a priority in your life. Are you putting career goals or other pursuits ahead of a God-given calling to pursue a wife and raise a family? It may be time to reorient your priorities and pursue marriage.
"I'm sure you know OF them. The fact that they are a small sliver of the Christian male population should tell you that that's not really relevant."
What makes you think they're "a small sliver of the Christian male population"? If anything, I'd say it's (regrettably) quite prevalent.
"But, of course, you didn't say they got sex as often as they want. You just said, 'regular sexual intercourse,' which is vague and unspecific. Most married men want sex 2-3 times a week. Most women can live with only having sex once or twice a month. If they have sex once a month consistently, then that qualifies as regular, but it sure isn't enough for the husband."
Yes, I think it's unfortunately not uncommon to see married men (and even women) struggle with porn despite sex 2-3x per week.
"Then there's husbands lying out of shame that their wives have done nothing wrong. That's a whole other complicated issue to untangle."
Certainly not a position I hold. I think women can be just as blameworthy as men.
"To be sure. For example, most Christian women are taught that they can refuse to have sex with their husbands for a variety of reasons."
Delete"Taught"? This sounds more like women from a Christian fundamentalist or similar background or upbringing.
By contrast, most women including Christian women I've met and known have come from a secular background. For better or worse, these women are not so much "taught" about sex as they imbue ideas about sex from the culture. That's not necessarily any better morally, but it's a different source.
"So, the Christian man has to make sure his bride understands that she'll have sex with him whenever he wants. No debating, no questions asked, no long-lists of excuses or exceptions. If she refuses to accept that, he needs to marry someone else."
If a woman isn't fulfilling her marital obligations (which includes sexual intercourse), then that's potential grounds for divorce.
"One size fits most. I'd rather give a one-size fits all to Christian male porn addicts that is at least BIBLICAL in nature, rather than all this gay homo wishy-washy idealistic nonsense that ignores men's basic needs."
1. "Most"? I doubt it.
2. So it's about being "blunt" and "BIBLICAL" or it's "gay homo wishy-washy idealistic nonsense" and "emasculated males"? No other options in your rhetoric? Of course, it's your prerogative to speak in whatever extremes you like (which will likely elicit even more!).
3. For the record, I haven't only been referring to Christian men. There are many Christian women who struggle with porn too.
4. For the record, I don't think porn is limited to visual images or video.
"Men do not 'need' drugs or alcohol, but they do need sex."
1. What I said doesn't depend on "need". The analogy was about addiction, not "need".
2. As far as that goes, however, there are different kinds of "needs". After all, sex isn't a "need" like water or oxygen. If a person doesn't have sex, he or she can still survive. So sex is not a "need" in that sense.
"Just as you wouldn't prohibit a man from drinking clean fresh water just because he got hooked on drinking from the sewer, you likewise don't ignore a man's sexual needs when you try to help him fight his porn addiction."
I never suggested "ignoring a man's sexual needs". Neither does Lambert's book. This is simply bad reading comprehension.
"Having marital sex is the biblical goal. Finally Free denies that. Therefore, it is not a decent starting point, mid-point, or end-point. Case closed."
Once again, I guess you missed bits like this from Lambert:
Marriage is wonderful for many reasons, not least because it is the only acceptable environment for sexual intimacy. For this reason, the apostle Paul tells single people that if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). Paul does not mean that marriage is the cure for lust. It isn’t. He means that marriage is the only legitimate relationship for those with appropriate sexual desires. If you are experiencing God-given sexual desires, a consideration of Proverbs 5 should encourage you to pursue marriage to a godly woman in a wise and careful way. Consider whether being married is truly a priority in your life. Are you putting career goals or other pursuits ahead of a God-given calling to pursue a wife and raise a family? It may be time to reorient your priorities and pursue marriage.
1. A big reason for this is because the book isn't solely written to single or unmarried people. It's likewise written to people who are married who struggle with porn.
DeleteI understand that, but marital sex is not recommended as a solution to either group. It is denied that that is the case, as I will demonstrate in a moment.
2. Did you even read his book? I doubt it now, because that's precisely what Lambert does advise Christians: to get married and have sex within marriage. Either you didn't read his book or you somehow missed it despite it being quite clear and evident. For example, here's what Lambert says near the end of chapter 6:
Yes, I did, but he does not say marital sex is the solution. He recommends it, to be sure, but as you quote him, he says, "Paul does not mean that marriage is the cure for lust. It isn’t." He directly denies the very thing that I Corinthians 7 teaches, I.E. you get married, you have sex, and as a result you might even escape temptation from the devil himself.
Elsewhere, Heath Lambert writes:
"Tom made a critical error when he confessed to his wife. After he fessed up, Tom said something foolish before either of us in the room could stop him. He commented that perhaps if she had a more active sexual relationship with him, he would not have been tempted. His wife did not take that very well. Her response was understandable because Tom’s suggestion was selfish and wrong. This kind of statement transfers the responsibility for your sin onto another person. When you sin, you are the one responsible (Mark 7:21–23). Other people can sin against you, make your life difficult, and entice you to sin, but they can never make you sin. When you sin, it is always your fault, and you should never say or do anything to make it sound like the fault lies elsewhere. If someone did sin against you, it is necessary to bring that up only after you have confessed and taken full responsibility for your own sin (Matthew 7:1–5)."
Like I said, marital sex is the solution, and he denies that, hence it is a bad book. If he thought marital sex was the means of fighting a porn addiction, he would never write what he wrote above. If this "Tom" can properly blame his wife for his struggles with pornography, but Heath Lambert will come down on him like a ton of bricks, then that means Heath Lambert doesn't believe marital sex is the solution.
What makes you think they're "a small sliver of the Christian male population"? If anything, I'd say it's (regrettably) quite prevalent.
Because most Christian males are unmarried.
Yes, I think it's unfortunately not uncommon to see married men (and even women) struggle with porn despite sex 2-3x per week.
Then you're more deluded than I thought.
Certainly not a position I hold. I think women can be just as blameworthy as men.
Lol, yeah, we'll see about that when you respond to my quote from Lambert's book.
"Taught"? This sounds more like women from a Christian fundamentalist or similar background or upbringing.
By contrast, most women including Christian women I've met and known have come from a secular background. For better or worse, these women are not so much "taught" about sex as they imbue ideas about sex from the culture. That's not necessarily any better morally, but it's a different source.
And your argument is what, exactly? That Christian women authors don't teach this too?
If a woman isn't fulfilling her marital obligations (which includes sexual intercourse), then that's potential grounds for divorce.
Agreed.
1. "Most"? I doubt it.
You have no reason to doubt it. The vast majority of Christian males addicted to porn are single men.
2. So it's about being "blunt" and "BIBLICAL" or it's "gay homo wishy-washy idealistic nonsense" and "emasculated males"? No other options in your rhetoric? Of course, it's your prerogative to speak in whatever extremes you like (which will likely elicit even more!).
DeleteYeah, it's about being blunt and biblical, two things Christians never are when they approach this topic, as I just demonstrated from Lambert's own book.
And I'll quote myself back to you from my first comment to remind you of what I've been talking about from the beginning:
"The joys of heaven and forgiveness do jack-squat for a deprived man. It doesn’t matter if he’s a Christian who knows that one day he’ll be in heaven. That couldn’t be less relevant. Expectations of heavenly rewards does not evaporate your penis’s need for friction and stimulation. Reading the Bible a lot won’t make you stop wanting to squeeze a woman’s breast or buttocks. God’s primacy, rewards in the after-life, it’s all irrelevant to men who are starving for sex. They will masturbate and they will look at porn, because all these aspirations of focusing on our lofty moral goals won't remove their sexual needs and desires."
3. For the record, I haven't only been referring to Christian men. There are many Christian women who struggle with porn too.
Granted.
4. For the record, I don't think porn is limited to visual images or video.
Agreed.
1. What I said doesn't depend on "need". The analogy was about addiction, not "need".
Except that you compared it to drugs and alcohol, which is an invalid comparison to make inasmuch as a sexual addiction proceeds from a legitimate physical and psychological need on the man's part, whereas drugs and alcohol do not. The solution obviously needs to be different as a result. You can legitimately treat alcoholism by abstaining from alcohol altogether, but you can't treat a porn addiction by abstaining from sex altogether. See the difference?
2. As far as that goes, however, there are different kinds of "needs". After all, sex isn't a "need" like water or oxygen. If a person doesn't have sex, he or she can still survive. So sex is not a "need" in that sense.
Couldn't be less relevant. You also don't "need" your arms, legs, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or even all of your brain. The fact that you can be alive without them for a longer period of time than water or oxygen is absolutely irrelevant. It's still a need that will cause suffering if not met.
I never suggested "ignoring a man's sexual needs". Neither does Lambert's book. This is simply bad reading comprehension.
I think people can read my response to your quote and my follow-up quote and make up their own minds about what Lambert's book really teaches.
For hopefully better clarity's sake, I'll group my response into four categories:
Delete1. Progress.
a. At least we're making progress!
Earlier you said: "This is NOT the advice given by Heath Lambert or 99% of preachers/authors who try to help men stop looking at porn. They'll recommend anything under the sun...Anything in the world but Paul's own advice taken straight from I Corinthians 7."
Now you say: "He [Lambert] recommends it [marital sex], to be sure...".
At least now you do concede Lambert "recommends" marital sex (even if you don't think Lambert goes far enough).
b. You said:
"Like I said, marital sex is the solution, and he denies that, hence it is a bad book. If he thought marital sex was the means of fighting a porn addiction, he would never write what he wrote above. If this 'Tom' can properly blame his wife for his struggles with pornography, but Heath Lambert will come down on him like a ton of bricks, then that means Heath Lambert doesn't believe marital sex is the solution."
-I think you have an unreasonable standard for Lambert. Lambert fully recommends single Christians pursue marital sex as a means to ovecome porn addiction. However, you think Lambert should not merely "recommend" marital sex as a means to overcome porn addiction, but that he should "recommend" marital sex as THE ONLY means to overcome porn addiction.
-Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of Tom and his wife's case in any intimate detail. I just know what Lambert wrote about them. However, let's say you're right and Lambert is wrong. If so, like I've said, I don't have a problem saying Lambert is wrong in this case by not blaming Tom's wife (instead of or along with Tom). As I've said, sometimes or perhaps oftentimes women are to blame as well. In fact, if you'll recall, I did you one better earlier by saying I think it's potential grounds for divorce if a woman doesn't fulfill her marital obligations including sexual intercourse.
However, what I don't conclude is just because Lambert is possibly wrong about one or even many things in his book therefore this means "hence it is a bad book" in toto and thus we condemn the entire book! That's an unreasonable reaction.
c. As an aside, I contacted Heath Lambert and asked if he'd like to comment in this thread. We'll see if he responds.
2. Demographics of porn use.
a. You keep equivocating between (single) Christian men and Christians in general - single, married, men, women. As I've told you, I've always been referring to the latter, not the former.
b. Obviously the demographics can change depending on how one tailors their search criteria. That said, the demographics are easy enough to find if you just Google using whatever search criteria you think are relevant.
c. From what I've seen, sadly, Christian porn use largely mirrors national porn use (e.g. this article).
d. "The vast majority of Christian males addicted to porn are single men." Now you're arguing in poor faith inasmuch as I've repeatedly told you I've never limited my case to the "vast majority of Christian males". Rather I've been referring to Christians in general this entire time.
Morever, I've likewise said (which you can Google to verify) there are plenty of married Christian men who struggle with porn and who are addicted to porn. Keeping in mind there are many more who don't admit they're addicted even though they are.
3. Alcohol and drug addiction analogy.
Deletea. As with analogies in general, there are limitations. There are analogies as well as disanalogies. However, the point of an analogy is to be analogous at the relevant point of comparison, not at irrelevant points.
b. My original contention was that porn addiction is like or akin to drug or alcohol addiction. Like or akin to substance abuse and addiction. That hardly means porn addiction is exactly the same as substance abuse and addiction. Again, there are points at which porn addiction is like substance abuse and addiction and there are points at which porn addiction is unlike substance abuse and addiction. What matters is the specific points of comparison.
c. My contention isn't novel. Both Christian and secularists have said as much too. Although with secularists you often have the case where they deny porn is an addiction at all, which in part is motivated by the fact that they don't think porn is morally wrong.
d. As far as your comments go though, here's one that unfortunately reflects your ignorance: "Except that you compared it to drugs and alcohol, which is an invalid comparison to make inasmuch as a sexual addiction proceeds from a legitimate physical and psychological need on the man's part, whereas drugs and alcohol do not. The solution obviously needs to be different as a result. You can legitimately treat alcoholism by abstaining from alcohol altogether, but you can't treat a porn addiction by abstaining from sex altogether. See the difference?"
-Yes, the difference is you're equivocating. You assume alcoholism is to alcohol as porn addiction is to sex. That's disanalogous. Instead, it should be alcoholism is to alcohol as porn addiction is to porn. See the difference?
-Also, the desire for sex is a legitimate desire. But so is the desire for drink a legitimate desire, yet the desire for drink can be how someone's alcoholism begins.
-"Need" is a bit of a weasel word here. Of course, desires can become disordered to say the least. But how is a desire tantamount to a "need"?
-No, you cannot "treat alcoholism by abstaining from alcohol altogether". At most, in some cases, but certainly not in every single case. Otherwise alcoholics could just give up alcohol cold turkey and never have an issue again.
Delete-Besides, if that's true, why don't you say the same about porn addiction: you can treat porn addiction by abstaining from porn altogether! See how simple it is! Sure, some people probably could just give up porn cold turkey and never have an issue with porn ever again. But that's not necessarily true for every single person addicted to porn.
-As I've said, there are analogies and disanalogies between alcoholism (or other substanc abuse and addiction) and porn addiction. For analogies, both are maladaptive patterns that negatively affects one's life. For example, a person who is addicted to alcohol/porn can fail to perform household duties or chores, arrives late to work, puts themselves in risky or dangerous situations, gets in trouble with the law, and so on, yet knowingly continues to use alcohol/porn despite these issues. That's looking at things from a more social perspective.
Now let's look at things from a more physical and psychological perspective. Patients who give up alcohol/porn can suffer from withdrawal symptoms when they decrease the amount of alcohol/porn or stop using it in toto (e.g. anxieties, depression). They can develop tolerance where their physical brains and bodies become so accustomed to alcohol/porn that a different kind of alcohol/porn and/or a greater quantity of alcohol/porn consumption is required to achieve the same effects as before (e.g. pleasure). They develop poor or impaired judgment as to major decisions in life. They experience depression when they don't fulfill their cravings.
Of course, as I've said, there are disanalogies as well. Alcohol (and other substances) can have physical symptoms like hallucinations, seizures, and delirium tremens which porn addiction can't. Sometimes medications such as clonidine are necessitated in order to deal with the sympathetic nervous system activation surges that often come hand-in-hand with withdrawal in people struggling to quit their addictions, which may or may not be the case in porn addiction. And so on.
Anyway, I can say a lot more later, but I'll stop here for now.
4. Bottom line.
Given all you've written so far, you strike me as someone who is still single or unmarried and sexually inexperienced. Nothing wrong with that. However, if so:
a. Married Christian couples. What is a problem is, here you are, a single or unmarried guy, with little if any sexual experience, who is making "blunt" accusations and harshly condemning a book in toto - indeed all but calling down fire and brimstone on Lambert's book - even though you're unfamiliar with at least (if not more) the fairly lengthy sections of the book that speak to married couples struggling with porn. Couples whose marriages are failing thanks to porn. Notwithstanding, your "solution" as it stands thus far is that it's the wife's fault, she needs to have sex 2-3x per week with her husband, and that will cure his porn addiction. See, simple!
b. Single Christian men. Here, your "one size fits all" "solution" for single Christian men (i.e. presumably your own demographic) is "Get married, have sex. Simple as that." You're like a lifelong teetotaller whose solution to someone struggling with alcoholism is, just drink water, then you'll never crave alcohol ever again!
At best, your advice or solutions might work for some people, but far from all.
c. You're too dismissive of other people's advice. Other people's advice (e.g. Lambert's, Piper's) be imperfect advice to say the least. But they're no more imperfect than your own "advice". And that's the problem.
Here is a helpful Ask John Piper on the topic at hand:
ReplyDelete"Has My Sexual Sin Made Me Unsavable?"
At least I think it's helpful, but perhaps some don't or won't. Anyway, see for yourself and decide.
Wow, really? The artist formerly known as Prince needs to read the mortification of sin and stop generalizing about everyone.
ReplyDeletePrince Asbel wrote:
ReplyDelete"Let’s be blunt: The joys of heaven and forgiveness do jack-squat for a deprived man. It doesn’t matter if he’s a Christian who knows that one day he’ll be in heaven. That couldn’t be less relevant….God’s primacy, rewards in the after-life, it’s all irrelevant to men who are starving for sex."
You're not being blunt. You're being careless and inaccurate. In my original post, I explained some of the reasoning behind seeking better joy from God than we'd get from sex. You haven't offered a response. Given that the factors you mention ("the joys of heaven", etc.) motivate people to avoid other behaviors, why should we think they provide no motivation in sexual contexts? In Luke 18:29-30, Jesus offers the incentive of rewards in this life and the next for, among other things, leaving a wife in service to him. That has an implication of abstaining from sex. So do other activities that Jesus and other Biblical figures motivate with such promises (e.g., suffering imprisonment in service to God, which carries with it abstaining from sexual activity).
"Get married, have sex. Simple as that."
Simple to the point of being simplistic. Even those who get married at a young age are going to have sexual desires prior to marriage. Sex within marriage isn't an answer for an eleven-year-old who recently started having sexual desires or a twenty-year-old whose wedding isn't scheduled until six months in the future. And not everybody who wants to get married will find a spouse. Within marriage, there can be a lack of sex for a variety of reasons (sinful withholding by one of the spouses, a spouse being away while serving in the military, physical and mental problems that accompany aging, etc.). Faithfulness to God sometimes requires the avoidance of sex within marriage (e.g., being imprisoned during a time of persecution).
Even for a married couple who are frequently sexually involved with each other, handling their sexual desires appropriately involves more than having sex within marriage. The spouses won't always have ideal bodies, perform sex ideally, be capable of beginning sex at the first moment the other spouse starts to have a desire, etc. There's sexual fulfillment in a general sense, but not in every detail.
Prince Asbel wrote:
ReplyDelete"All these other things have their place, but they were never meant to substitute for sexual intercourse."
Life often doesn't go as it was meant to go. Sometimes you have to choose among imperfect options. Abstaining from pornography while being unmarried and sexually inactive doesn't have to be the ideal in order to be viable and better than the alternatives under a given set of circumstances.
"Anything in the world but Paul's own advice taken straight from I Corinthians 7."
In the same passage, Paul refers to how it's acceptable for some individuals to not get married. There's no reason to think those people had no sexual desires. Paul doesn't tell them to make their decision based on whether any sexual desire exists. Rather, they're to make a decision based on the totality of the circumstances. He mentions a variety of factors to take into account. They may have some sexual desires, yet think other factors outweigh those desires. The reference to self-control in 1 Corinthians 7:9 is most naturally taken as an acknowledgment that there's some degree of sexual desire that needs to be controlled among the unmarried individuals in question. Those people, just like individuals who get married and have sexual desires prior to their wedding day, would have to obey God's commandments on sexual matters without having sex within marriage.
You're not being blunt. You're being careless and inaccurate. In my original post, I explained some of the reasoning behind seeking better joy from God than we'd get from sex.
DeleteAnd as I said in the portion of the paragraph that you didn't include in your quote, that has nothing to do with the gratification men need from sex. Praying won't make your erection go away. Reading your Bible won't make you stop wanting to touch or gaze at a woman's body. That was my response. You didn't include it in your quote, but anyone who knows how to scroll up can go and see the complete comment that I made.
In any case, the better joy from serving God... it's so far out in la-la land it's hard not to ridicule it. You know what? Serving God is better than drinking water. That's objectively true. We both agree on that. So, would you like to tell that to a man stuck out in the desert for 24 hours with no water? Hey, man! Drinking water is good, but let me tell you about the GREATER joy in serving God! No, you would just give him a freaking bottle of water. The joys of heaven aren't going to quench his thirst. He'll die while you're telling him about the joys of heaven. Great job, genius. I'm sure God will be very proud of you.
You haven't offered a response.
I think it's clear to the readers that I've done so numerous times. I'll let them decide for themselves.
Given that the factors you mention ("the joys of heaven", etc.) motivate people to avoid other behaviors, why should we think they provide no motivation in sexual contexts?
Because they're not recommended as effective solutions. From Proverbs to I Corinthians, it's sex that's recommended, not focusing on the joys of heaven. Heck, in I Corinthians 7, it says that married couples may abstain from sex for a time of prayer, but to come together again to avoid temptation from Satan. That in and of itself undermines even prayer as a means of avoiding satanic sexual temptation.
Heck, the fact that Paul went out of his way to remind them to start having sex when they're done with prayer should tell us something. That reminder shouldn't even be necessary. He already told them to stop having sex for a time. That clearly indicates that this time of prayer was limited, so why did he find it necessary to tell them to have sex at the end of this time of prayer? If he believed what you believed, then that's completely unnecessary. They might have prayed to ask God to help them focus on the joys of serving him, or to remind them of their heavenly rewards! Wouldn't that be sufficient to protect them from temptation from the devil himself?
Apparently not. He does not tell them to pray so that they might not even be tempted by the devil. He tells them to have sex. Paul understood the critical need for it, apparently better than most Christians alive today.
In Luke 18:29-30, Jesus offers the incentive of rewards in this life and the next for, among other things, leaving a wife in service to him. That has an implication of abstaining from sex.
And since Paul and Christ's teachings can't contradict the other, Christ's call to serve to him would not require that a man who can't control his sexual desires leaves his wife and hence make himself vulnerable to temptation from Satan. Christ says to watch and pray that we don't fall into temptation. I think temptation from the devil himself is even worse, therefore, your argument from Luke 18:29-30 seems pretty weak.
Simple to the point of being simplistic. Even those who get married at a young age are going to have sexual desires prior to marriage. Sex within marriage isn't an answer for an eleven-year-old who recently started having sexual desires or a twenty-year-old whose wedding isn't scheduled until six months in the future.
DeleteAnd the advice from Solomon all the way up to Paul regarding sexual desires is either have sex with your wife, or to get married and have sex. Practical application of this principle is to help prepare youngsters and adults for marrying ASAP and to help them remain as sexually pure as they can be prior to that. In the meantime, you can recommend any number of methods, but the understanding must be that these other things have only short-term effectiveness by comparison to the ultimate goal of marital sex.
In the same passage, Paul refers to how it's acceptable for some individuals to not get married.
True.
There's no reason to think those people had no sexual desires.
True again. In fact, he posits an unmarried man who has sexual desires as an example in verse 37:
"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."
Paul doesn't tell them to make their decision based on whether any sexual desire exists.
Right, because it's a given that they exist. But, he tells them to make their decision based upon their own ability to control those desires. He makes marriage an option to a man who can control his desires, not for men who can't. And as we both know, 99% of people can't, ergo, 99% of Christians should marry so they can have sex.
The reference to self-control in 1 Corinthians 7:9 is most naturally taken as an acknowledgment that there's some degree of sexual desire that needs to be controlled among the unmarried individuals in question.
That's not even a disputed point here. The advice given is if you CAN exercise that control, then don't marry. If you can't, then you DO marry. It's marital sex all the way through.
We can flesh out any principle of Scripture and apply it to different situations. Not every command is accompanied by qualification. Paul's command is qualified somewhat, but it is never qualified by negating the necessity of marital sex in favor of prayer/heavenly rewards/focusing on God, etc. If anything, he set marital sex up as a greater priority than prayer itself. I wouldn't say it like that if Paul didn't say it that way, but he did, ergo your arguments stand thoroughly refuted.
NB: Prince Asbel has moved the goalposts.
DeleteOriginally he was arguing for sex in marriage as the only solution to porn addiction.
Now he's acting like his argument has always been about sex in marriage as the solution to a lack of self-control over our sexual desires (which is what I've been saying).
Of course, don't believe it just because I said it. As Prince Asbel likes to say, anyone can simply scroll up and read what he's said.
Prince Asbel wrote:
Delete"Reading your Bible won't make you stop wanting to touch or gaze at a woman's body."
As Epistle of Dude has noted more than once, one of the problems in this discussion is that you keep moving the goalposts. Who suggested that something like reading the Bible will eliminate sexual desire? A practice like reading the Bible can motivate us to respond better to our sexual desires, lessen how often we think about sex and how intense our desires are because of what our mind is set upon, etc. Therefore, it's careless and inaccurate to say, as you did earlier, that the activities I and others have recommended "do jack-squat", are "irrelevant", and so on. The issue here isn't whether sexual desires cease to exist. Nobody here claimed that they do or that the desires are sinful. But some aspects of the desires and how we respond to them are affected by how we view God, reading the Bible, using blocking programs on our computer, and so forth. Those approaches to sexual issues don't have to "make you stop wanting to touch or gaze at a woman's body" in order to be effective. Similar principles apply to our desire for food, handling our anger, etc.
"In any case, the better joy from serving God... it's so far out in la-la land it's hard not to ridicule it."
You have yet to refute it. Ridiculing it as "so far out in la-la land" doesn't refute it, nor does anything else you've said. I presented an argument for getting more joy from God than from sex, and I cited Biblical passages about God's primacy. Saying that God's primacy doesn't eliminate sexual desire, as you have in your latest posts, misses the point. I was addressing sexual sin, not sexual desire, and the ongoing existence of sexual desire doesn't prove that sexual joy is superior to joy in God, much less that the joy of sexual sin is superior.
Prince Asbel wrote:
Delete"Serving God is better than drinking water. That's objectively true. We both agree on that. So, would you like to tell that to a man stuck out in the desert for 24 hours with no water? Hey, man! Drinking water is good, but let me tell you about the GREATER joy in serving God! No, you would just give him a freaking bottle of water. The joys of heaven aren't going to quench his thirst. He'll die while you're telling him about the joys of heaven. Great job, genius. I'm sure God will be very proud of you."
Your analogy isn't analogous. If the man is going to "die while you're telling him about the joys of heaven", then giving him the bottle of water first doesn't imply that the joys of water are superior to the joys of God or that the superiority of the joys of God wouldn't help the man avoid water in contexts in which drinking it is sinful. Rather, giving him the bottle of water is a non-sinful means of leading him to the joys of God (in addition to accomplishing other good things). You give him the bottle of water in order to have the opportunity to lead him to something superior. There's no analogy with sex or sexual sin. Sex isn't a need in the sense in which water is a need. And the desire for sex is different in other ways. It's not as constant, for example. Furthermore, given that you've acknowledged that sex should be avoided prior to marriage, why couldn't somebody who rejects that view respond to your analogy by pointing out that you'd tell the man that he can have the water in six months, five years, or some other time in the future equivalent to when he would get married? If the man would die before hearing about "the joys of heaven", as you put it, he'd also die before you got done telling him about the joys of drinking water in several months, a few years, or whenever. Your analogy, if accepted, seems to defeat your own position. (You may have qualifiers in mind that you didn't communicate clearly enough, but that's not my responsibility.) If you "just give him a freaking bottle of water", with giving the bottle of water being equivalent to giving him sex, then that's not equivalent to what you'd do. Telling him about the joys of getting the bottle in the future (i.e., having married sex in the future) involves more than "just" giving him the bottle.
Prince Asbel said:
Delete"From Proverbs to I Corinthians, it's sex that's recommended, not focusing on the joys of heaven."
No, I've given you examples of Biblical passages about the primacy of God, which includes his primacy over sex and sexual sin. A passage doesn't have to be solely or primarily about sex in order to be relevant to sex. You keep focusing on explicit passages while ignoring what's implicit in so many other passages.
But you're wrong about the explicit passages as well. Proverbs encourages marriage and sexual contentment within it, but that's not the only approach that's taken. Readers are also told about the negative consequences of sexual sin, how it leads to relational problems, financial problems, etc. (e.g., 5:4, 5:9-12, 6:26, 6:29, 6:33) Proverbs instructs both those who are unmarried (they're told about seeking a wife, for example) and the married. The fact that both are told to avoid sexual sin, and that they're provided with more than sex within marriage to do so, is inconsistent with what you've been arguing. Proverbs doesn't take your simplistic approach. Rather, it appeals to "reproofs for discipline" (6:23) to avoid "the evil woman" (6:24). It appeals to multiple motivations for avoiding sexual sin. Those motivations include sex within marriage, but aren't limited to it. Some of the advice Proverbs gives, such as keeping away from certain women (5:8), is the sort of counsel you've been ridiculing in this thread. Proverbs is a book of wisdom, and it repeatedly puts knowledge of God at the foundation of wisdom (9:10). By contrast, you ridicule the "la-la land" of appealing to the primacy of God.
1 Corinthians doesn't support your simplistic approach either. Before we even get to chapter 7, which you keep citing, Paul appeals to judgment in the afterlife to motivate the avoidance of sexual sin (6:9-10). He appeals to how sexual immorality dishonors Christ and the Holy Spirit (6:15, 6:19). He appeals to how sexual sin harms your body (6:18). He appeals to the desirability of glorifying God by avoiding sexual sin (6:20).
"Heck, in I Corinthians 7, it says that married couples may abstain from sex for a time of prayer, but to come together again to avoid temptation from Satan. That in and of itself undermines even prayer as a means of avoiding satanic sexual temptation."
Prayer doesn't have to be the only means of avoiding sexual sin in order to be one of the means. In this passage you keep singling out, Paul is addressing the more immature members (the ones lacking self-control in 7:5) of one of the most immature churches he wrote to. He prescribes sex within marriage as one means among others of avoiding sexual sin for those individuals. Your position doesn't follow from anything Paul said.
Prince Asbel said:
Delete"They might have prayed to ask God to help them focus on the joys of serving him, or to remind them of their heavenly rewards! Wouldn't that be sufficient to protect them from temptation from the devil himself?"
Paul isn't addressing sufficiency. He's addressing efficiency. The fact that sex within marriage is an effective means of avoiding sexual sin doesn't imply that it's the only means or a necessary one.
"And since Paul and Christ's teachings can't contradict the other, Christ's call to serve to him would not require that a man who can't control his sexual desires leaves his wife and hence make himself vulnerable to temptation from Satan."
If, according to your position, only some people with sexual desires can't control them, then you're acknowledging that passages like Luke 18:29-30 are relevant to handling sexual desires for other people. Therefore, such approaches to sexual desire aren't "irrelevant", and they do more than "jack-squat", contrary to what you claimed earlier.
As for your category of people who "can't control their sexual desires", you haven't provided much of a definition of that category, much less proven its existence. I'll have more to say about that below.
"Practical application of this principle is to help prepare youngsters and adults for marrying ASAP and to help them remain as sexually pure as they can be prior to that."
Saying that people should marry "ASAP" doesn't change the fact that they have to spend some time handling their sexual desires without married sex and that scripture expects them to avoid sexual sin in that context. That refutes some of the comments you've made in this thread. And how would you "help them remain as sexually pure as they can be" without using one or more of the approaches you've been ridiculing in this thread?
Furthermore, you aren't addressing the many situations within marriage in which married sex doesn't occur (e.g., when a spouse has some sort of physical or mental problem that prevents sex from occurring). Those scenarios are somewhat common, and they often go on for years.
Prince Asbel said:
Delete"In the meantime, you can recommend any number of methods, but the understanding must be that these other things have only short-term effectiveness by comparison to the ultimate goal of marital sex."
If the eleven-year-old I referred to earlier can have "short-term effectiveness" for, say, five or seven years, why can't it be extended beyond that? Extending it would be difficult, but difficulty isn't the same as impossibility or even something close to impossibility. And if recommendations like I made in the original post in this thread would help that eleven-year-old to some extent, why would you ridicule those recommendations the way you have in this thread?
"And as we both know, 99% of people can't, ergo, 99% of Christians should marry so they can have sex."
How do you supposedly know about that 99% figure? I don't know it, so you shouldn't claim that "we both know" that it's true.
You keep referring to people who supposedly "can't" go without marital sex, "the necessity of marital sex", etc. You have yet to prove that it's a necessity. And if those same people are called on to avoid sex prior to marriage and to avoid it when their spouse can't provide it (e.g., an elderly spouse with some relevant physical or mental illness), then why are we supposed to think they need it? You could say they need it in some lesser sense than the one in which that term is normally used, but then your argument is weakened accordingly. And why not use terminology that would more clearly communicate what you have in mind? It seems that people who hold positions like yours often try to have it both ways. They want to suggest that sex is a need akin to drinking water when arguing for the alleged importance of sex, all the while not having to defend such an absurd position if asked to do so. They want all of the benefits of using the language of necessity without the responsibilities.
Let's remember some other examples of what scripture says about sexual sin and ask how they line up with Prince Asbel's view.
DeleteWhen Joseph was sexually tempted by Potiphar's wife, there's no mention of his handling it by finding a woman to marry and having sex with her. Rather, Joseph appeals to the repulsiveness of sinning against God (there's God's primacy again), keeps resisting the temptation, and eventually flees from the presence of the woman tempting him (Genesis 39:7-12). He spent years in prison as a result, and he wasn't having sex with a wife in prison, much less was he having sex at least twice a week. He got married later, but his previous sexual faithfulness wasn't achieved through marital sex, much less exclusively that way.
Job refers to how he doesn't even gaze on a woman he shouldn't be sexually involved with (Job 31:1). That's reminiscent of "bouncing the eyes", which Prince Asbel ridiculed.
Jesus prescribes self-discipline and warns about hell when discussing sexual issues (Matthew 5:27-30). He doesn't just tell people to have married sex and leave it at that.
Paul traces the origins of sin to a false view of God (Romans 1:18-32). Sin, including the sexual sins he mentions, come from not "acknowledging God" (1:28), and all sin is "falling short of the glory of God" (3:23).
For what it's worth, I wrote a summary response on my weblog.
ReplyDelete