Okay, we can say inappropriate contentea means "illicit sex". I believe the only law Christians have to follow is the Law of Christ. I identify the law of Christ with the admonition to love one another. We also could say that Christ’s life, and the sacrifice of his life in his death, exemplifies to the uttermost the law of Christ. That is, Christ’s life and death are the paradigm, exemplification, and explanation of love.
A very loving as in 1 Corinthians 13 approach to your Christian walk. God bless you!
So, my morality stems from asking one simply question: Is this loving?
Again, a good approach as in what is described in 1 Corinthians 13. Let us not forget we should base this on Christ as he loved sinners but did not condone their sin.
There are several situations where non-marital sex can be harmful or unloving. Those acts are sinful.
There are several situations where non-marital sex is not harmful or unloving. Those acts are not sinful.
What are those situations in which non-marital sex is not harmful or unloving? How do you get to decide? What was the remedy stated by both Torah and Paul for those who engage in premarital sex? Get hitched is the answer.
We live in an era of grace and liberty. This doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, like the libertines would argue, but it also doesn't require us to live by strict legalism, as the traditionalists would espouse. What matters now is the intentions of our heart. The purity boundaries have been reversed. It is not what is external to us that defiles (food, corpses, menstruation, sperm, etc.), but instead what is internal. This is why love is key.
1 Corinthians 6:12-17 makes a distinction between purity of the stomach such as foods and the and I quote "bodies" which are members of Christ. It is very clear how Paul is making this distinction and he is not using corporate 'Body' as in other places in the epistle. Again, as quoted 'bodies.' Paul is making it quite clear sexual immorality is sin which damages our spiritual relationship with Christ.
Perhaps you could opine on what you mean by 'strict legalism.' Paul's language is quite clear in all the epistles where he addresses sex and marriage that (1) only sex within marriage is God's design and (2) anything else is fornication---sexual immorality. I have also pointed out several times Paul addresses sexual immorality outside the context of pagan temple rituals. I've quoted Ephesians 5, Galatians 5, 1 Thessalonians 4, and Colossians 3. All of which list the same sins listed in 1 Corinthians without allusion or discussion of pagan temple rites. I have posted these passages quite a many times and you do not address them.
I'm not sure how many times I can reiterate this. One flesh does not have a sexual connotation nor does it mean coming together to have children. Not all couples are able to have children and they are still considered one. One flesh only references the type of relationship a man and a woman have when they become married. This bond is analogous to kinship bonds. Now, of course, such unions will likely include sex and possible bring forth children, but this is not what makes a couple one.
One flesh does indeed have a sexual connotation. Paul even elaborates on this as he gives the example here:
1 Corinthians 6: NKJV
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Paul clearly understands Christ in Matthew 19:1-12 is speaking of the bodily union of flesh---having sex as "the two shall become one flesh." It can't be any other explanation. Notice again "is one body with her."
You can continue to assert "one flesh" does not involve sex, but Paul clearly says so.
Is your argument 'Paul is not really saying what he is saying?'
As for
Proverbs 5, it promotes the idea that a healthy sexual relationship within marriage can be had without venturing into exogamy. Sex is what was tempting married Israelite men to marry foreign woman. And in this case, "wife of your youth" is an idiom for first wife. It was common (and cheaper) to marry a foreign woman for your second wife. This passage is focused on one particular context, trying to apply it to non-marital sex (which it isn't even about) across the board is ill advised.
Third time now I have to explain to you I was pointing out the positive healthy aspects of marriage as quoted in Proverbs 5. For some reason you are arguing against something I did not bring up.
I thought we discussed this already. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" was not Paul's words. He is quoting the legalistic Corinthians. Paul is not advising all people to marry in verse 2. He is saying that if you are already married, you should have sex with each other. Apparently some Christian wives (or possibly husbands) were taking up this mantra as an excuse to not have sex with their husbands! This would often lead these men to fall back into old habits, such as having sex at temple feasts to release their sexual tension.
I never argued "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" were Paul's words. Not understanding why you keep bringing this up.
Paul is indeed telling those who cannot be celibate to marry. The plain words are very clear here. No he is not just addressing people who are already married. These are the plain words:
1 Corinthians 7: NKJV
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
This would often lead these men to fall back into old habits, such as having sex at temple feasts to release their sexual tension.
Yet, Paul makes no mention of husbands going back to the temple for releasing sexual tension. Considering Paul rebukes a man for shacking up with his father's wife in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, why would anyone exclusively apply temple prostitutes to each and every statement made by Paul. Now unless your argument is this man's father's wife was a temple prostitute. The "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" does not work for Biblical exegesis.
In this particular context, Paul does advise the unmarried (in verse 9) to get married if they are being tempted to continually visit temple prostitutes. However, he only suggests this to those who were currently struggling with this.
Once again, you introduce 'temple prostitutes' to the plain words of Paul. That is not the context here. The context is sexual immorality and burning with passion. Either live like him (Paul) and be celibate or get married. Again the "6 degrees of pagan temple prostitutes" does not work in Biblical exegesis. I showed this several times as Paul admonishes several churches on moral issues without the context of pagan rituals. I did so in post #56 here:
Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful
As I listed above: I've quoted Ephesians 5, Galatians 5, 1 Thessalonians 4, and Colossians 3. All of which list the same sins listed in 1 Corinthians without allusion or discussion of pagan temple rites. I have posted these passages quite a many times and you do not address them.
You must remember that there wasn't many options available for lawful sexual encounters in this culture. Most women were married the moment they came of age. Marriage was, and still is, a very good option for those who wish to have regular sex.
We are getting somewhere. You are right there were only two options available then, and also today. Get married or remain celibate (1 Corinthians 7). Those were the positive teachings from Christ (Matthew 19) and Paul. The only option given 'to have regular sex' is marriage. There is no other positive scenario given anywhere in the NT.
Now if you want to compare Biblical culture vs. modern/post-modern culture, that would be a very interesting topic. I would love to opine on such if you were to create such a thread in say "controversial Christian theology" as you would have more takers there.
This does not mean there are no other options though. Our current society, thanks to birth control and other medical/cultural advancements, has more non-marital sexual options available to the unmarried.
As indicated above, Christ and Paul teach and reinforce only two options. Marriage or celibacy.
Options that align with the Law of Christ.
Clearly not as only two options are indicated. This is not a legalistic stance. It is what Christ and His apostles taught. Two options (marriage or celibacy), which you painstakingly depicted, the Corinthian church facing a hedonistic pagan lustful Greco-Roman society. So what has changed? Nothing. These hedonistic practices and the temptations associated have been around since mankind developed cities. They remain today and the new 'temples' just don't have a pagan deity associated. As Paul most astutely stated after listing every sin in the book:
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man (
1 Corinthians 10:13).
Yet you would have me believe things are different now.
If your appeal is to the universal 'love' as you use it in your first quote, such fails when applied to the actual Biblical NT love as described here:
1 Corinthians 13: NKJV
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
My question:
Perhaps you can provide me with a vignette of what you would consider a righteous example of premarital sex?
Your answer:
Biblical example: Concubinage.
Given the keeping of concubines was not one of the options offered by Christ in Matthew 19/Mark 10 and nowhere do any apostles teach such, how do you apply this as licit relationship? The teaching is marriage or celibacy. I can only think of fringe Mormon sects or cults who promote polygamy and concubinage. Maybe your specific church or faith group has a teaching on this you can offer. I say that because you cannot find it, or even a whiff of it in apostolic teachings.
I can list several examples of monogamous marriages with the same type of marital issues in the Bible. Does this mean monogamous relationships are wrong?
Sure you can list them.
Christians are monogamous because of Greco-Roman influence. Did you read the article I posted above? Do you have a rebuttal?
If you need an article to make your point, then please just make your point. Meaning, I have not used RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Piper and hundreds more theologians to make my points. I could have painted every response with quotes refuting the liberal theologians you quoted. I didn't do so given the answers are right in front of us in plain view in the Scriptures.
Here is the rebuttal again. Christians are monogamous because that is what Christ taught in Matthew 19/Mark 10--
THE TWO shall become one flesh--- and that is what the apostles taught (Ephesians 5) as well.
The onerous task is with you to find legalistic loopholes and present a case based on silence.
