Your approach to Scriptural principles.

[seeingeyes]

Yes, they should have known better. To honor father and mother was still a command.

Why should one suppose that this command is more important than that command (assuming that only one could be followed)?

Studying the Scriptures does not guarantee faith. Agreed.

However, Jesus even in the statement you referenced indicated that these same Scriptures bore witness to Him, and in no way belittled them.

I'm not sure how belittling comes into it.

Now that we agree Scripture is not the be-all-end-all of faith, do you think Jesus would endorse ignoring Scripture principles given to us for our help?

This isn't about ignoring scriptural principles, it's about prioritizing them.

What is more important: Refraining from work on the Sabbath, or healing the sick? What is more important: Retaining ceremonial purity or helping an almost-dead man at the side of the road? What is more important: Fasting or celebrating the presence of the Lord? Aren't all of these things good?

Jesus answered all of these, and he gave of the tools with which to answer other questions. Any and all interpretations of scripture should be judged by their fruit, no?

 

[mkgal1]

I am suggesting that love as a concept is not a specific enough guide to behavior. The rest of the Scriptures, which happen to touch on marriage and enemies for instance, give further guidance.

That's part of the reason (I believe) that "the Word became flesh"---so we have a tangible---and observable---idea of what "love as a concept" is in order to guide our behavior (and our understanding of Scripture). I don't believe anyone has said "love alone" (without the Bible).

But....you had said this (in response to Hetta saying that we are to love even our enemies):

folks are pointing out that love is spelled out more specifically at times in the Scriptures.

......and I said it is spelled out more specifically (thinking of 1st Corinthians 13, for one example).

Your response makes it seem like the same love is demonstrated (or seen) through our interactions of enemies and our spouses.

 

[tall73]

That's part of the reason (I believe) that "the Word became flesh"---so we have a tangible---and observable---idea of what "love as a concept" is in order to guide our behavior (and our understanding of Scripture). I don't believe anyone has said "love alone" (without the Bible).

But....you had said this (in response to Hetta saying that we are to love even our enemies):



......and I said it is spelled out more specifically (thinking of 1st Corinthians 13, for one example).

Your response makes it seem like the same love is demonstrated (or seen) through our interactions of enemies and our spouses.

It was not my intent to compare love to spouse and love to enemy. We love both. However, that love may take different forms. Again, my intent was to show that the Scripture outlines what love is in different contexts, to different people, etc. and spells it out more fully.

To Love God and Love your neighbor is what the law hangs on. (Everything else flows from those). But sometimes we, as sinful people, are not particularly good at understanding those two, and the specifics help us flesh out the idea (but not limit it to just the specifics necessarily).

 

[tall73]

Why should one suppose that this command is more important than that command (assuming that only one could be followed)?

If you want to talk approaches to ethical dilemmas we can. It appears you may be suggesting a graded absolutist approach. But there is no conflict between the OT command to tithe and the command to honor Father and mother. So they didn't have to choose. They could do both. They could tithe and take care of their parents.

This isn't about ignoring scriptural principles, it's about prioritizing them.

What is more important: Refraining from work on the Sabbath, or healing the sick? What is more important: Retaining ceremonial purity or helping an almost-dead man at the side of the road? What is more important: Fasting or celebrating the presence of the Lord? Aren't all of these things good?

You may want to spell out how it relates to the topic at hand, which was whether Scriptural principles are good because they are Scriptural, or only if they are practical, etc.

I am just not following you. It may be me.

Jesus answered all of these, and he gave of the tools with which to answer other questions. Any and all interpretations of scripture should be judged by their fruit, no?

a. A lot of Scripture doesn't need much interpreting. Is adultery good or bad? Scripture says bad. But you can talk to many an adulterer who says God would want them to be happy, and they try to reason around it.

b. fruits were for judging people primarily. False prophets were people.

As to Scriptural principles, how do you always judge the fruit? Is someone who becomes a martyr for serving God rather than man benefiting in a practical way? Some would say not. I would say he was faithful and people might put their faith in Christ.

Perhaps if you spell it out some more we can find some agreement.

 

[seeingeyes]

You may want to spell out how it relates to the topic at hand, which was whether Scriptural principles are good because they are Scriptural, or only if they are practical, etc.

I am just not following you. It may be me.

You spoke of "ignoring scriptural principles". So was Jesus "ignoring scriptural principles" when he decided to do the work of healing on the Sabbath? Was he "ignoring Scriptural principles" when he told the story of the "good Samaritan"? Was he "ignoring scriptural principles" when he said, "You have heard it said...but I say..."?

a. A lot of Scripture doesn't need much interpreting. Is adultery good or bad? Scripture says bad. But you can talk to many an adulterer who says God would want them to be happy, and they try to reason around it.

All scripture is interpreted every time you read it. You know how the passage you're reading seems different now than the time you read it 15 years ago? That's because you are interpreting it differently now than you did before.

Everything is interpreted. Even the dang "stop" signs must be interpreted. "Who has to stop? How long do we stop for? Who goes next?"

It's certainly true that one make ask such question to try to weasel out of stopping, but it is also true that someone who does not ask those questions would just stop at the stop sign. And stay there. Until the darn thing blows over...

b. fruits were for judging people primarily. False prophets were people.

Then we may judge the fruit of those who use a certain interpretation of scripture. Isn't that what the Lord did?

As to Scriptural principles, how do you always judge the fruit? Is someone who becomes a martyr for serving God rather than man benefiting in a practical way? Some would say not. I would say he was faithful and people might put their faith in Christ.

I would say that a man who was willing to die for his cause was a man of passion and consistency (even if I disagreed with his cause). A man who dies for the sake of his friends or for his cherished God is a man of love. And a man who dies for the sake of his enemies is the very picture of Christ.

How he benefits is up to the grace of our Lord, but I would venture to say that one who is martyred for the sake of others is not asking how it benefits himself any more than Jesus did.

 

[tall73]

You spoke of "ignoring scriptural principles". So was Jesus "ignoring scriptural principles" when he decided to do the work of healing on the Sabbath? Was he "ignoring Scriptural principles" when he told the story of the "good Samaritan"? Was he "ignoring scriptural principles" when he said, "You have heard it said...but I say..."?

The original discussion was in regards to comments that seemed to indicate if a Scriptural principle was not fair, or practical, etc. that it need not be kept.

Raising issues of moral dilemmas is something different. Even in the case of graded absolutism you are not "ignoring" a Scriptural principle, but are consciously deciding that one takes precedence.

So that is a bit different that what I was referring to. It may be an interesting conversation to have though, and was one I was talking about with my son recently.

An interesting example of graded absolutism at work is God blessing the midwives who lied to Pharaoh about the male babies in Exodus 1.

Exo 1:15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah,
Exo 1:16 "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live."
Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.
Exo 1:18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?"
Exo 1:19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them."
Exo 1:20 So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong.


The example shows two aspects of moral dilemmas.

1. Varying authority. While submission to authorities is important, if an earthly authority goes against God they should fear God rather than Pharaoh.

2. Priority of God-given laws. Even from Abraham's time it was seen as bad to lie, and even the Egyptians noted this to Abraham, so this would be well known, even though the later laws given to the Israelites were not yet established. However, to preserve life, and serve God was more important. Therefore God blessed the lying midwives.

 

[tall73]

All scripture is interpreted every time you read it. You know how the passage you're reading seems different now than the time you read it 15 years ago? That's because you are interpreting it differently now than you did before.

Everything is interpreted. Even the dang "stop" signs must be interpreted. "Who has to stop? How long do we stop for? Who goes next?"

It's certainly true that one make ask such question to try to weasel out of stopping, but it is also true that someone who does not ask those questions would just stop at the stop sign. And stay there. Until the darn thing blows over...

Clearly we learn new things all the time. However, it is rarely the practical sections where this is the case, and usually more the theological section. Sure, everyone can analyze, and sometimes over-analyze. Depends on what "is" is. But most people don't have to analyze a stop sign every time. They generally know what it means.

Scriptures are a bit different because they are spiritually discerned. However there are a number of straight-forward imperatives and teachings that do not demand much interpretation. The difficulty with them is not understanding them, but doing them, due to our sinful nature which rebels. Here are some samples:

Eph 4:25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

Most people would understand that we are not to lie to one another from this text.


Eph 4:28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

Most people would understand from this we are not to steal, but rather to work so we can help others.

 

[tall73]

Then we may judge the fruit of those who use a certain interpretation of scripture. Isn't that what the Lord did?

Yes, at times we may. On the other hand, sometimes folks will call something "wrong" if it is just not convenient.

 

[tall73]

I would say that a man who was willing to die for his cause was a man of passion and consistency (even if I disagreed with his cause). A man who dies for the sake of his friends or for his cherished God is a man of love. And a man who dies for the sake of his enemies is the very picture of Christ.

How he benefits is up to the grace of our Lord, but I would venture to say that one who is martyred for the sake of others is not asking how it benefits himself any more than Jesus did.

I agree with all those thoughts. But I am not sure you are getting why I referenced them.

From a viewpoint of whether what he did was "practical" many would say not. But it was faithful, and it was doing what God asked, and it was right.

 

[seeingeyes]

The original discussion was in regards to comments that seemed to indicate if a Scriptural principle was not fair, or practical, etc. that it need not be kept.

Raising issues of moral dilemmas is something different. Even in the case of graded absolutism you are not "ignoring" a Scriptural principle, but are consciously deciding that one takes precedence.

So that is a bit different that what I was referring to. It may be an interesting conversation to have though, and was one I was talking about with my son recently.

An interesting example of graded absolutism at work is God blessing the midwives who lied to Pharaoh about the male babies in Exodus 1.

Exo 1:15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah,
Exo 1:16 "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live."
Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.
Exo 1:18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?"
Exo 1:19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them."
Exo 1:20 So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong.


The example shows two aspects of moral dilemmas.

1. Varying authority. While submission to authorities is important, if an earthly authority goes against God they should fear God rather than Pharaoh.

2. Priority of God-given laws. Even from Abraham's time it was seen as bad to lie, and even the Egyptians noted this to Abraham, so this would be well known, even though the later laws given to the Israelites were not yet established. However, to preserve life, and serve God was more important. Therefore God blessed the lying midwives.

Yes. Exactly.

Now if I recall correctly, the post that sparked this thread was within a conversation about whether it is more important for a man (specifically) to love his wife as Christ loves the church, or to demand sex from her in the name of God.

The idea that demanding sex (by saying, "See this verse? You are in sin if you don't have sex with me today, wife") doesn't work. It does not foster good fruit. It's fruit is that of one "lording it over" another, just as Jesus told us not to do. (Therefore, it cannot even be considered a "scriptural principle", but a misinterpretation of a "scriptural principle".)


(I have to go for now, but I'll continue later. )

 

[tall73]

Yes. Exactly.

Now if I recall correctly, the post that sparked this thread was within a conversation about whether it is more important for a man (specifically) to love his wife as Christ loves the church, or to demand sex from her in the name of God.

The idea that demanding sex (by saying, "See this verse? You are in sin if you don't have sex with me today, wife") doesn't work. It does not foster good fruit. It's fruit is that of one "lording it over" another, just as Jesus told us not to do. (Therefore, it cannot even be considered a "scriptural principle", but a misinterpretation of a "scriptural principle".)


(I have to go for now, but I'll continue later. )

A. We have discussed ad-nauseum that demanding sex is not the issue.

B. In severe cases where someone is intentionally withholding sex for leverage or due to other issues in the marriage it is not wrong to present the text to demonstrate that this is not normal behavior in marriage. Not to demand immediate sex, but to show that there is a problem that needs to be worked on.

It is not an ethical dilemma.

 

[seeingeyes]

A. We have discussed ad-nauseum that demanding sex is not the issue.

If a homeless man knocks on your door and says, "The Bible says you have to give me whatever I ask for. Gimme fifty bucks", then he is, indeed, making a demand.

If I say, "You must do this for me, or God will be angry about it", that's a demand.

We're not playing semantics games, are we?

B. In severe cases where someone is intentionally withholding sex for leverage or due to other issues in the marriage it is not wrong to present the text to demonstrate that this is not normal behavior in marriage. Not to demand immediate sex, but to show that there is a problem that needs to be worked on.

I agree that it is different to speak about one's sex life than about one particular instance of sex, yes.

But also, I would be horrified if the only reason my husband was "putting out" was because Paul told him to, or because he was trying to enact "normal behavior" in our marriage. The mechanics of sex mean very little compared to the heart.

So issuing this order would not actually fix the problem even if it was obeyed.

 

[tall73]

If a homeless man knocks on your door and says, "The Bible says you have to give me whatever I ask for. Gimme fifty bucks", then he is, indeed, making a demand.

If I say, "You must do this for me, or God will be angry about it", that's a demand.

We're not playing semantics games, are we?

No, we are not at all. Because again, no one has said to demand sex with that text. Now some HAVE repeatedly talked about husbands raping their spouse in that conversation, but that was a distortion of what Paul said.

Also, there is a huge difference between a homeless man who you don't know who is making a demand by quoting the Bible and two spouses' talking. In one case there is a relationship, and in the other there is not.

There are a few times, as discussed in that thread, when the text might be referenced between spouses within the context of their relationship. Here are some that I could think of:

a. By couples who have busy schedules and sometimes lose track of the priority for sex with other things going on. My wife and I tend to fall into this category at times. We will occasionally mention this text to one another, not as a rebuke, and certainly not as a demand, just as a reminder that we should not go for too long without sex. We both agree on the concept, there is not fighting over it. It is not that we always quote this text, but it is something we reference now and again if we have not made being with each other a priority lately.

b. If one of the spouses is using sex as a bargaining tool then this text is appropriate to reference to show that it is not a legitimate bargaining tool. It is not demanding sex at that moment, but appealing to the spouse to fight in a fair way and not use sex for leverage. This would be an appropriate spring-board for a larger conversation on the relational dynamics, but because the issue being used is sex it is good to introduce a biblical passage that indicates sex should be given to both as a protection and not used as a tool.

c. The text could be used in cases where there are different drives, but it could be discussed by both partners in noting that they should come to some mutual agreement as to sexual frequency and meeting the needs of each other.

d. If someone was withholding sex for a long time it could be referenced as a sign of things being not right. The demand would not be for immediate sex, but for work on the relationship. I actually think in this context there may be other texts that could be referenced first in most cases, but it depends on the issue. If it is marital strife then there are probably more appropriate texts to mention regarding God's ideal for marriage. However, in another case I saw one partner was having difficulty with sex due to previous abuse. They were recently married and this was a struggle for both of them. This text was mentioned (not by me, by the spouse) not as a means to demand immediate sex, but as an appeal for them to get help through counseling, because it showed what a married sex life should be, and what they could work towards. Since lack of sex was the real world problem that caused this discussion to come up it made a good springboard to get help on this past abuse that was still causing issues, apparently in a variety of ways.


Just as a note, the I Cor 7 thread was not the only thread that prompted this discussion, and this thread is not a veiled second discussion of that topic. Folks can feel free to discuss that topic in the other thread. But I noticed in multiple threads what appeared to be a notion that Scriptural principles might not apply if they are not fair, convenient, etc. as reckoned by the individual.

 

[tall73]

I agree that it is different to speak about one's sex life than about one particular instance of sex, yes.

But also, I would be horrified if the only reason my husband was "putting out" was because Paul told him to, or because he was trying to enact "normal behavior" in our marriage. The mechanics of sex mean very little compared to the heart.

So issuing this order would not actually fix the problem even if it was obeyed.

The very fact that you are discussing "issuing orders" is just ridiculous. No one has stated you should issue orders, and that kind of statement is exactly what I objected to throughout several threads. People reference a text or concept and people will take the most extreme distortion of it and argue against that, as though anyone were claiming that was the point of the text in the first place.

However, several people, men and women, have now noted in the other thread that they WILLINGLY, decide to have sex with their spouse when initially they are not in the mood. And I think pretty much all of the cases they have said they do it because they love their spouse and want to meet the needs of the other spouse. They also wind up enjoying the experience, though at first they were not in the mood.

That is not a demand at all.

Most of them also said there are times they just are not in the mood and do not do this.

None of them mentioned having to grit their teeth and quote Paul throughout the experience. They do it because they want to put their spouse's needs ahead of their own, and in the process they have found that they wind up enjoying it too. Since this is the case when they try it, they continue to do it, for the sake of their spouse, and because they have now learned it doesn't take long to get in the mood.

Now, explain why THAT behavior is wrong, not the distortion that keeps getting thrown around with no one advocating it.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Now, explain why THAT behavior is wrong, not the distortion that keeps getting thrown around with no one advocating it.

Just because no one here has specifically advocated for it doesn't mean that no one ever does. If you really think that no spouses ever demand sex, and use Scripture as a weapon to get what they want... well, then, you really need to get out more. Go look at some domestic violence websites. It's really, really common for abusive spouses who are Christian to quote Scripture as a means of controlling and dominating their spouses.

I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable for people to be concerned that such abuse may be the end result when there is talk of using Scripture in such situations.

Besides which, I think people's tendency to think of the extreme abusive scenario is evidence in itself that this approach may not be the best.

Okay, so let's think about this for a second. Your view is that this Scripture passage can be quoted and talked about when one spouse is withholding sex. And you believe that doing so would not be demanding sex.

But you have a lot of people here who react to the idea of bringing up the passage in such a situation negatively because they believe it is coercive.

So.... if so many people who are not personally invested react so negatively to the thought.... what are the chances that a spouse will not react negatively?

I think it should tell you something about that approach that so many people react the way they do. At the very least, it should tell a person to tread cautiously because quoting Scripture in such a situation could easily backfire. What if the spouse doesn't take well to having Scripture quoted at him or her in such a situation? Then what have you accomplished? A bigger rift in the relationship.


Personally, I don't think Scripture should ever be used by one person to get something they want from another person. When you boil it down to the bone, what you get here is one spouse wants more sex and they're going to quote Scripture to get it. Ultimately, I think it's selfish.

 

[tall73]

Just because no one here has specifically advocated for it doesn't mean that no one ever does. If you really think that no spouses ever demand sex, and use Scripture as a weapon to get what they want... well, then, you really need to get out more. Go look at some domestic violence websites. It's really, really common for abusive spouses who are Christian to quote Scripture as a means of controlling and dominating their spouses.

I already acknowledged abuse of Scripture occurs. A discussion on a Scriptural principal though should not be dominated by every wrong use someone can think up. I am more interested in discussing what the principle is than all of its abuses.

That doesn't make me ignorant, or mean that I should "get out more". It means a discussion about the meaning of a Scripture should be about the meaning of the Scriptures, not the meaning of people who sickly abuse God's word.

I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable for people to be concerned that such abuse may be the end result when there is talk of using Scripture in such situations.

Besides which, I think people's tendency to think of the extreme abusive scenario is evidence in itself that this approach may not be the best.

Now this is what I am speaking of. Because some people THINK of all the wrong uses of Scripture should never mean we should not use Scripture correctly.

You can think of a million abuses of Scripture, and none of them justify throwing out Scripture.

 

[tall73]

Okay, so let's think about this for a second. Your view is that this Scripture passage can be quoted and talked about when one spouse is withholding sex. And you believe that doing so would not be demanding sex.

But you have a lot of people here who react to the idea of bringing up the passage in such a situation negatively because they believe it is coercive.

So.... if so many people who are not personally invested react so negatively to the thought.... what are the chances that a spouse will not react negatively?

I think it should tell you something about that approach that so many people react the way they do. At the very least, it should tell a person to tread cautiously because quoting Scripture in such a situation could easily backfire. What if the spouse doesn't take well to having Scripture quoted at him or her in such a situation? Then what have you accomplished? A bigger rift in the relationship.


Personally, I don't think Scripture should ever be used by one person to get something they want from another person. When you boil it down to the bone, what you get here is one spouse wants more sex and they're going to quote Scripture to get it. Ultimately, I think it's selfish.

A. I have seen it used effectively. Correction is not pleasant or easy, and must be done carefully. But it can be done that way.

B. The reactions of people here have largely been to distortions, not what the text says. So no, I do not think that would impact someone approaching their spouse in a careful way.

C. The Scriptures are useful for correction. If the Bible say that then no amount of scenarios where folks distorted that or did it poorly changes that fact. If everyone in the world disagreed with a passage of Scripture that God inspired, they would all be wrong, and God would be right.

D. "Getting what they want" is not the only goal. Sometimes it is getting what God wants.

There is more than one thing in play.

There is the overall good of the spouse who is refusing. If the spouse is refusing nearly every time, is that ultimately what God wants for that spouse in marriage? Or does He intend the sexual relationship to be a bonding one-flesh experience?

There is the overall good of the spouse being refused. Does God want for that spouse to always be refused, not just physically, but emotionally? The text also says there is protection against immorality involved, does God want temptation to be more pronounced for that spouse?

There is the overall relationship between the two. God wants it to be healthy, not always in conflict. That is not served by the issue either.



If a person's spouse were an alcoholic (not just drinking, but regularly getting drunk with other life impacts), would it be wrong for a spouse to appeal to that person using the Scriptures?

Would they not be getting some benefit as well?

The spouse who is an alcoholic would benefit from not getting drunk all the time. and from being more in line with God's will.

The family and friends would benefit from more time with the family member and not as much collateral damage

The spouse who appeals would also benefit--but does this mean the person should not get involved because they stand to gain? Of course not. They should be involved because they care about

a. the spouse
b. the relationship
c. themselves
d. God's will.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

A. I have seen it used effectively. Correction is not pleasant or easy, and must be done carefully. But it can be done that way.

But why should we brush past the many examples of the times when it isn't done that way?

You seem to want to discuss this as though we live in a perfect world where everyone would always do it the "right way."

It matters very much that so many people abuse it. It matters that as human beings we have a tendency to distort, abuse, misinterpret and misunderstand Scripture. Knowing what we do about human nature, it's irresponsible to teach a method that will inevitably be misused.

You talk about these "distortions" as if they're not common, as if they're aberrations. In my experience, they're unfortunately all too common. Really, I think it is much more likely for the so-called "distortions" to happen than the "right way" to happen.

I honestly believe that the only situation in which such a "correction" of one's spouse would actually work is a situation where such "correction" is actually unnecessary. The only way it would work is if BOTH people are acting with right motives and have the right attitude about it. And if they already have the right motives and attitudes then there would be no need for correction.

B. The reactions of people here have largely been to distortions, not what the text says. So no, I do not think that would impact someone approaching their spouse in a careful way.

Not what you think the text actually says. This is another problem with your approach. You don't take into account the very real possibility that a spouse pulling out Scripture to "correct" could be the one distorting the text.

So what happens if the spouses disagree on the interpretation? Now, instead of correcting whatever the problem is, you've simply created another one. The couple is now going to fight over whose interpretation is right.

C. The Scriptures are useful for correction. If the Bible say that then no amount of scenarios where folks distorted that or did it poorly changes that fact. If everyone in the world disagreed with a passage of Scripture that God inspired, they would all be wrong, and God would be right.

Again, though, what if the person doing the "correcting" is the one who is wrong?

That passage you allude to also says that Scripture is useful for rebuking. Do you also think that it is okay for spouses to use Scripture to rebuke one another?

D. "Getting what they want" is not the only goal. Sometimes it is getting what God wants.

See, but this is where the coercion comes in. When a person who has something to gain says to another person "God wants you to do this," that's coercion.

You can try to evade that all you want but when you break it down that's the basics.

When one person wants more sex and they tell their spouse "God wants you to do this" they're acting selfishly. They're using God as a tool to get what they want.

Now, they may have convinced themselves it's true. But it's an implied threat nonetheless. It's basically saying "if you don't have sex with me, God will be displeased with you."

There is more than one thing in play.

Yeah, I don't really think there is.

There is the overall good of the spouse who is refusing. If the spouse is refusing nearly every time, is that ultimately what God wants for that spouse in marriage? Or does He intend the sexual relationship to be a bonding one-flesh experience?

Ultimately, I'm sure God would want for that spouse to be able to enjoy sex, yes.

But I don't think God would want the other spouse pressuring the "refusing" spouse into sex by saying that's what God wants. That strikes me as coming rather close to taking the Lord's name in vain.

You talk about people distorting the Scripture in question... But then you go on to say things like this. Paul didn't say that the reason spouses shouldn't deprive one another is because God wants them to have lots of bonding one-flesh experiences. That wasn't the reason he gave.

So should we go beyond the text like that? Should we put words in God's mouth and tell a spouse that by refusing sex you're going against what God wants?

I don't think God really cares how often we have sex with our spouses. God cares if we love one another or not.

If one spouse is constantly refusing to have sex, there's ALWAYS a reason for that. The reason needs to be addressed first. That's what love does.

Quoting Scripture at someone that basically says "you have to do this because the Bible says so" just brushes right past the reason the person is not wanting sex. It's not likely to fix anything. It's not likely to make that person suddenly want to have sex. It's only likely to introduce fear, anger and resentment.

Do you think that's an outcome God would desire? For a spouse to have duty sex out of fear of making God angry?

Perfect love casts out fear.

There is the overall good of the spouse being refused. Does God want for that spouse to always be refused, not just physically, but emotionally? The text also says there is protection against immorality involved, does God want temptation to be more pronounced for that spouse?

I'm sure God doesn't want anyone to be hurt by not having as much sex as they like. And I do believe that sex is a gift God has given us.

But not getting what we want all the time is one of those things that God OFTEN uses for our own good. Maybe God wants a person to learn self-control, endurance, patience, and empathy. Maybe God sees that lack of sex might be painful for a time but will ultimately produce good fruit.

Maybe the spouse who feels rejected should take it as an opportunity for personal growth, rather than focusing on correcting his or her spouse.

There is the overall relationship between the two. God wants it to be healthy, not always in conflict. That is not served by the issue either.

Well I don't see how using Scripture to correct or rebuke a spouse for not having sex will resolve conflict. IMO, that just introduces more conflict into the equation.

If a person's spouse were an alcoholic (not just drinking, but regularly getting drunk with other life impacts), would it be wrong for a spouse to appeal to that person using the Scriptures?

Maybe. I don't think it would be effective. No one was ever cured of alcoholism by having Scripture quoted at them.

The spouse who is an alcoholic would benefit from not getting drunk all the time. and from being more in line with God's will.

The family and friends would benefit from more time with the family member and not as much collateral damage

The spouse who appeals would also benefit--but does this mean the person should not get involved because they stand to gain? Of course not. They should be involved because they care about

a. the spouse
b. the relationship
c. themselves
d. God's will.

Of course everyone would benefit from someone not being an alcoholic anymore. But the question is... Would "correcting" the person with Scripture actually accomplish that goal? And that answer to that is a resounding "no."

The outcome that you want may be good for everyone but that doesn't mean that the methods you use will actually produce that desired outcome.

You know, Scripture says that it's the Holy Spirit that works in us to do God's will; that sowing to the spirit is what produces good fruit in our lives. Scripture never says that quoting Scripture at people will change the way they behave.

 

[tall73]

But why should we brush past the many examples of the times when it isn't done that way?

You seem to want to discuss this as though we live in a perfect world where everyone would always do it the "right way."

It matters very much that so many people abuse it. It matters that as human beings we have a tendency to distort, abuse, misinterpret and misunderstand Scripture. Knowing what we do about human nature, it's irresponsible to teach a method that will inevitably be misused.

You talk about these "distortions" as if they're not common, as if they're aberrations. In my experience, they're unfortunately all too common. Really, I think it is much more likely for the so-called "distortions" to happen than the "right way" to happen.

1. We do not live in a perfect world. But I have seen presenting the Scriptures work in this world. So if I am focusing on presenting God's view to a sinful world it is because I have seen it work.

2. God provided the Scriptures FOR this sinful world, not an ideal world, where He would not have to deal with such things.

3. In the case of the I Corinthians example the whole letter was written to a very non-ideal world where they were falling into all kinds of sin and had it deeply entrenched. He didn't say "well I guess we can't give you anything to do because you might mess it up. No, he gave them direction.

4. Particularly in I Corinthians 7 the passage was laying down judgments that would help direct behavior. He also appealed to direction already given by Jesus, indicating that these principles go beyond just their local situation. Why would he bother to give judgments if he thought there was no purpose in showing God's way in a sinful world?

5.

Knowing what we do about human nature, it's irresponsible to teach a method that will inevitably be misused.

No, knowing what we do about human nature it is important to warn against abuse, but then go right on and do and present and correct with if necessary what God says.

If Jesus says that when you neighbor sins against you go to him I believe it. When He inspired Paul to say that the Scriptures are useful for correction, I believe it. And Paul knew it was in a context of people who don't want to hear it, and want to distort it, which was why correction was so necessary.

We cannot just say that the Scriptures are too dangerous so we should not bother. We cannot say that the Scriptures are only for a make-believe world. God gave the Scriptures for this world. And if we are going to take our time to discuss what He told us then I would like to spend that time encouraging what He said to do, not make excuses for why what He said to do is too dangerous.

If the problem is abuse then teach the people to do it correctly. But do not say that we just cannot correct with Scripture because it is too dangerous.

 

[tall73]

I honestly believe that the only situation in which such a "correction" of one's spouse would actually work is a situation where such "correction" is actually unnecessary. The only way it would work is if BOTH people are acting with right motives and have the right attitude about it. And if they already have the right motives and attitudes then there would be no need for correction.

That is your belief. OK. However, I do not believe that, because I have seen it work correctly, from spouses, from pastors, from lay members, from Christians of all types. I b believe that when Jesus said if your brother sins against you, go to him He was outlining what should be done in areas of interpersonal conflict among believers.

If it is Christ's outlined way of dealing with issues then I cannot go by what I feel. I have to go by what He said. He said to people in the real world, knowing better than any of us the human heart.