Your approach to Scriptural principles.

[tall73]

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.

I very much do. Which is why I wanted to discuss what Paul actually says, rather than every distortion of it. If the problem is people having the wrong view of the text, then giving a correct view of the text would be helpful, would it not?

A few comments on what Paul does actually say next to a flood of statements about the dangers of people who abuse the text is not a balanced approach. Yes, reference can be made to what Paul is NOT saying if it is a common view.

But that should never call into question a Biblical practice of correction because many people could get it wrong.

Try to explain how to get it right! Don't throw out what is good because some people don't do it.

 

[tall73]

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.

They are better off looking to the Scriptures for their answers, even if immediately they do not agree on those answers. Because now they have gone beyond simply considering their own opinions. If they disagree they may want to consult Christian guidance. But at least they are then looking at it as an issue where God does have something to say, rather than simply looking at it as an issue where they have a personal disagreement.

I think most pastors or Christian counselors, if they went to them, could tell a husband that no, the text does not mean you can demand sex at any moment.

And I think most pastors or Christian counselors could help them understand that both have needs and they need to work together toward meeting them.

They would be better off at that point.

Again, I reject the notion that you must leave the Bible out of "real" life because it might not "work." It is designed for real life, it was written to real people.

If you cannot apply Scriptures to life because people might not always agree, then why have the Scriptures to begin with?

 

[tall73]

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

Then the other spouse should suggest they seek Christian guidance. Again, if the one correcting is wrong it can be pointed out. Or maybe they both have aspects they are wrong about.

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?

Yes, I do completely. In fact my spouse has rebuked me, and I am glad she did. I was wrong.

My children have even given mild rebuke to me, using the Scripturees. And I wasn't glad immediately, but I was glad when I stopped to think about it, because they were right.

How else can I say yes? I think it is right when needed and done from love.

Moreover, many of the people of this forum think it is right--in some contexts. Have we not had threads in here even lately where people in effect say "it is time to let your spouse know that things have to change?"

Sometimes drastic situations, usually adultery or abuse etc. call for drastic measures.

In a case where a husband is abusing the child, should not the wife rebuke and correct him? If she is scared should she not also get help in doing so (pastor, police, whatever is needed) and take measures to protect the child?

Real life sometimes calls for correction and rebuke. And the Scriptures were written to real people who sometimes faced those issues.

 

[tall73]

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."

If God has laid out that sex should happen in marriage, without large amounts of time going by, as a guard against immorality, then is God happy with that not happening?

If you love your spouse and your family, it is not just about your immediate drive. It is about what is best for your spouse and your family.

I can't not take action in my family to get closer to God's ideal because it might benefit me.

Correcting my children may get them closer to God, and may benefit me. Should I not do it?

It just doesn't make sense.

If God says it then we should try to do it. If that means correction, then that is the way it is, whether it is me corrected or my spouse, or my kids.

God is either going to be Lord in our lives or not.

In my case I have said more than once both of us tend to get busy and we don't have sex for a while. It is not a matter of different drives. It is a matter of priority. When we realize it we make an effort to schedule time, because we know it is important. So is it is my best interest? Yes, because God in His understanding of our nature said it is. We may not think about it as often as we should, but He informs us that we should, so we try to remind each other when we think of it.

And we tend to find (and some research also suggests) that we get along better when we have sex. Of course, there is correlation and causation. Obviously people have sex more when they get along as well.

We find it works both ways.

 

[tall73]

Yeah, I don't really think there is.

But then you turn right around and admit there is more than one thing in play. There is not just the one spouse's desire for sex. There is a principle laid out by God.

That is two things at the least. There is concern for the spouse, not just yourself. And if God says it is in the best interest of BOTH, then it is.

 

[tall73]

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.

It is not taking God's name in vain to try to help your family work towards what He wants. It is just not.

If God knows that your family works better one way, and it protects from temptation, how can you say it is just selfishness to try to raise that point with your spouse?

You can do it in a way that does not say "I want sex right this instance". It can and has been done.

 

[tall73]

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?

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?

In the very next line I referenced temptation to immorality, which is part of the rationale he gave. But it is only part.

He also recognizes that both of them DESIRE sex, that they should not be deprived of that relationship with their spouse.

Why does Paul tell them to have sex with their spouse rather than their neighbor? Because they are one flesh, and that is cheapening that if they go outside of it. They can be one flesh with their spouse, or one flesh with a prostitute. He also recognized that they are one with Christ, and Christ should not be one flesh with a prostitute.

Right before I Corinthians 7 we have I Corinthians 6 where Paul references their abuse of the "one flesh" experience, in the context of that immorality.

1Co 6:15 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 prostitute? Never!
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."

The ideal that Paul and Jesus refer to in Genesis was a one-flesh experience between husband and wife. They were not doing that when they had sex with a prostitute. Paul instead encourages them to be one flesh with their spouse, which Jesus does not object to, as He does being one flesh with a prostitute. Being one flesh with a prostitute joins Christ to a prostitute and Paul says it is outrageous. Being one flesh with your spouse is what God intends if you get married (He also endorses those who can be single towards God).


So no, I am not distorting it. Sex with your spouse is helping with biological needs, but it is more than that. And it is sanctified in a way sexual immorality is not. Being one flesh with your spouse is God's plan. Being one flesh with a prostitute is not.

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?

1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

It is going against what God wants if a spouse is always refusing.

If they both have rights and if they are not to deprive except by agreement, for a limited time, then it is not distorting the text to say that.

 

[tall73]

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 God had no interest in whether spouses were having sex there was no need to inspire the following:


1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Loving one another is wanting to be in line with what God wants for both of you. That is the ultimate good for both of you.

God does not prescribe a set number of sessions by any means. But He does warn against letting things go for long periods with no sex because it can be a problem of temptation.

And beyond that, God designed us with a desire for sex. God recognizes that both DESIRE sex.

It is not just a protection, it is something good that both should want.

 

[tall73]

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.

I have actually said more than once that there are usually other texts that could be looked at first. But again it depends on the reason.

If it is due to manipulation to get what they want in exchange for sex, this might be a first place to go.

Or if it is because of hurtful words in general that separate them or other issues, another text might be the place to go.

If it is a situation where both just don't make time for it, which happens in my case some times, then it is a perfectly appropriate text to mention.

 

[tall73]

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.

Fear of correcting perhaps?

Scriptures that call for a decision in light of being outside of God's will are not just brushing by the problem.

There may be a number of texts which speak to the problem. And as I noted earlier, this thread is not about the one text in I Corinthians, or even about just sex. It is about general approaches to Scriptural principles.

It has not been my experience that bringing up Scripture will always result in conflict. Therefore I would not think that.

But more importantly God does say to go to a person and talk to them about problems, and does say the Scriptures are for correcting. So I cannot just ignore that even if I think it may not be the "best" way from my perspective.

And again, quoting Scripture is to motivate desire to get back into God's will. They do not usually fix anything instantly. They are a starting point beyond our own authority to agree on what is God's will. Then there is the process of looking at how that comes about and all the related factors.

Quoting Scripture is not the whole solution. It is the beginning point. And guidance from the Scriptures helps all along. But no one fixes what they have no desire to fix. And that is why looking at what God has to say on things is important.

 

[seeingeyes]

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.

See, you flipped the perspective, though. If I say, "boy, I'm really not in the mood, but my man sure is raring to go, so I'm going to give him some fun tonight" that a very different thing than if I say, "boy, I'm really not in the mood, but my man sure is raring to go, so I'll give him some because Paul said I should, and I really don't wanna make God mad".

In one case, I'm putting my own immediate physical desire on the shelf in order to do good things for this man because I want to do good for this man. In the other case I'm putting my own physical desires on the shelf in order to do something that will save my own butt from God's wrath.

Same action, different motivation. And I can tell you which one I'd rather be in bed with...

You got exactly the point with the hypothetical homeless man. He has no relationship with you, so his only recourse is to hit you with some outside authority. If a marriage gets to that point, they have much bigger problems then they realize.

 

[tall73]

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.

Certainly there are many times where we should take this approach, and I think anyone who has been married long has ample opportunity for this.

No one that I have seen posting in the various threads here is advocating sex on demand every time one partner wants it . Everything is give and take. And in cases of frequency differences there is no way to avoid one partner getting less sex than they want, and learning control, and one engaging in sex more often than they might initially want, and also learning to give, if they are truly to work together to try to mutually meet each others needs.

However, if it is an ongoing issue then again to never address it does not bring the couple into line with God's will.

There are cases of health where it cannot be avoided. There may be issues to work through of anger or prior abuse, etc. that have to be worked through, and in those cases sex is put aside.

However, just letting sexless marriage go on in situations where there is not biological reason for it, without trying to address the issues leading to it is not good.

 

[tall73]

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


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."

Yet some have been motivated to seek out cure by having Scriptures quoted at them.

Has anyone said that quoting Scripture magically cures anything?

Rebuke is aimed at correction of desires and direction. From there it is a process to go in the new direction.

Sometimes God grants it immediately, sometimes not. But it all starts with desire to bring oneself into line with God's will.

 

[tall73]

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.

If God says the Scriptures are useful for correction and rebuke, then do you think that should not have been said?

Yes, you must do it the right way, in the right attitude, for the right reasons.

But I cannot say that what God says is not the right method. That would be putting my judgment above God's.

 

[tall73]

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.

So you think that Paul writing to the Corinthians at length to appeal to them, including quoting Scriptures and words of Jesus, did not change the way they behave?

Except we know that it did from later letters.

I am going to take a very harsh example. Was Paul here asking Titus to rebuke the people of Crete, and did he expect that it could help them be sound in the faith and turn away from people who commanded them wrongly?



Tit 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
Tit 1:11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
Tit 1:12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
Tit 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Tit 1:14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.


Please explain the meaning of this text:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Did Paul not want Timothy to rebuke and correct and train in righteousness?

Why would he want him to if the quoting of Scripture does not make any difference to behavior?

 

[tall73]

See, you flipped the perspective, though.

I flipped the perspective from the distortion of Paul that has been presented repeatedly that husband should demand sex on the spot.

If I say, "boy, I'm really not in the mood, but my man sure is raring to go, so I'm going to give him some fun tonight" that a very different thing than if I say, "boy, I'm really not in the mood, but my man sure is raring to go, so I'll give him some because Paul said I should, and I really don't wanna make God mad".

I have had sex because I wanted to make my wife happy. And I have had sex because God says I should to prevent immorality, but both of our schedules had been busy and we hadn't gotten around to it.

My spouse and I still enjoyed it. They are not mutually exclusive. God wants you to please your spouse and it helps against immorality.

There is no conflict between the two.

In one case, I'm putting my own immediate physical desire on the shelf in order to do good things for this man because I want to do good for this man.

And the additional motivation that God says this is the best way to help your spouse is not also considered? It is for me. Both are considered, and both are good motivations.

In the other case I'm putting my own physical desires on the shelf in order to do something that will save my own butt from God's wrath.

Actually it would be to save both of you from temptation. And yes, being in God's will is still not a bad thing. Wanting to please God is not a bad thing, and I will not say it is no matter how much folks present it in these ways.

If you are only doing it to save your butt from God's wrath you are not following the text which is more concerned about both of you, your desires, and protecting each other from temptation.

You got exactly the point with the hypothetical homeless man. He has no relationship with you, so his only recourse is to hit you with some outside authority. If a marriage gets to that point, they have much bigger problems then they realize.

Yes you do. And even those could be addressed by some Scriptures if both spouses still have any regard for God left, regardless of their view of each other.

But the point being that in a marriage you do have a relationship, and it is not all about your desires, or just putting out to save your butt. It is about doing what is best for you, your spouse, and pleasing God.

And in this case the good news is you can do all of that by having sex with your spouse.

I actually found when preaching on the subject folks appreciated that. They said they wished they had heard it earlier.

 

[seeingeyes]

And in this case the good news is you can do all of that by having sex with your spouse.

But that isn't true. Again, the reason that my husband has sex with me is important to me. Not just the act. If he never wanted to have sex with me, but still did (most) every time I wanted to, I would consider that a problem. It would be heartbreaking.

 

[tall73]

But that isn't true. Again, the reason that my husband has sex with me is important to me. Not just the act. If he never wanted to have sex with me, but still did (most) every time I wanted to, I would consider that a problem. It would be heartbreaking.

That would be a problem. What I presented was doing all three, not just one.

The problem would then by why does he never want to have sex with you? And this text would still be a good starting point to find out the rest of the issue.