"It is better to marry than to burn with passion." [PG-13]

[Robert]

1 Cor 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. [Why? Verse 28: "Those who marry will have worldly troubles [troubles in the flesh], and I would spare you that"] 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband....5 Do not deprive each other [context: sexually] except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again [i.e., sexually] so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control [weakness]. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am [i.e., not weak in sexual matters]. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

In other words one reason for marriage (not the only one) is due to sexual weakness?

What do you think?

[Neil D]

Hummmmmm....Ok, so from what you have posted, I can see where man NEEDS a woman....

But I can not see where a woman NEEDS a man.....

And I am coming to the conclusion that ....your post is almost sexist...your saving grace is that you posted innocently... Wouldn't you agree that the above post could be looked at in that light?

[Woody]

I think you both are disconbobulated.

[Robert]

I didn't write that, Paul did.... teehe

[Neil D]

I didn't write that, Paul did.... teehe

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

I didn't write that, Paul did.... teehe

Nice out...but didn't you intend for it to be that way???

Granted, Paul wrote it, but you are hiding behind the words of the Prophet....Be a man, and stand on your own two feet and tell us where you are going with this thread....

According to my understanding of Paul I see two things here:

1] It's better not to marry because you will (not you might) have problems

and

2] It's better to marry if you can't control your passions.

Rob

[fccool]

According to my understanding of Paul I see two things here:

1] It's better not to marry because you will (not you might) have problems

and

2] It's better to marry if you can't control your passions.

Paul also wrote that he does not let women teach and that they should listen in quietness of submission and will be saved through childbirth. I think we have to look at his writings with understanding of a culture and time. I don't believe that I do have that understanding, so I can only speculate why he said these thing. But it is clear to me from other Biblical examples that the reason for marriage is not to avoid sexual immorality, because being married will not save you from it. I believe that you can be sexually immoral even with your own wife.

_____

[Bravus]

Personally I think Paul is plain wrong, Biblically wrong, in saying it is better not to marry. Marriage is one of the first institutions God set up in the Garden, and is good.

As I understand it Paul thought Jesus would return in his life time and it was urgent to spread the gospel ASAP, and this may have been the root of this teaching, although even that is extra-biblical interpretation. It seems more as though he just had issues with sexuality - issues that have echoed down through the church since.

God invented sex, and created it for our pleasure and to bind us together. Suggesting that it is wrong or undesirable, and just some kind of fault or failing that must be contained if it can't be extinguished, is a perversion.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see that Paul is taking away from the honorable institution of marriage. I think his point is that we do get more done to for the Lord as being unmarried. However most people have issues with the flesh (as most are hard-wired that way).

Certainly a husband and a wife can be sexually immoral together. Watching pornography together is perhaps a fine example of that. In Paul's day, there were married couples that would go to pagan temples and engage with temple prostitutes. So marriage wasn't itself a shield against sexual immorality. However marriage does provide an outlet for the sexual desires that God has programmed into so many of us.

[Bravus]

But again, seeing celibacy as the ideal and marriage as a compromise is just wrong-headed, IMO.

[Robert]

According to my understanding of Paul I see two things here:

1] It's better not to marry because you will (not you might) have problems

and

2] It's better to marry if you can't control your passions.

Paul also wrote that he does not let women teach and that they should listen in quietness of submission and will be saved through childbirth. I think we have to look at his writings with understanding of a culture and time. I don't believe that I do have that understanding, so I can only speculate why he said these thing. But it is clear to me from other Biblical examples that the reason for marriage is not to avoid sexual immorality, because being married will not save you from it. I believe that you can be sexually immoral even with your own wife.

Paul is the main theologian on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Shall we reject this also?

[Robert]

Personally I think Paul is plain wrong, Biblically wrong, in saying it is better not to marry. Marriage is one of the first institutions God set up in the Garden....

[Bravus]

Robert, I'm sensing a theme in your recent posts that suggest your own marriage has hit some rocks, now or in the past. Hope I'm wrong about that, and if I'm right I'm sorry for your loss and pain. But you probably shouldn't generalise from that experience in making theology.

Aside from the personal question, there is a serious theological question here. Can Paul be mistaken on this issue in the Bible. Does inspiration stop him, for example? Can he be wrong on this and still right on justification by faith?

Is it a legitimate question to ask whether Paul's teachings on this issue are consistent with Jesus'? And with the rest of the Bible?

Is it legitimate to ask whether perhaps Paul, who was unmarried, had a balanced perspective on the issue, given that he was not given specific visions or instructions from God on the issue?

Once again, I find myself in the position where Adventists say to me 'It's all or nothing with the Bible' and I increasingly find myself saying 'if it's all that, I'm worried that it's going to have to be nothing, if those are the only options'.

[fccool]

Paul is the main theologian on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Shall we reject this also?

Why do you not sacrifice the animals on the altar in Israel today? Should we follow every single thing that Bible describes as "should be done"? Of course not. I believe you know better than to commit that slippery slope assumption. You need to read the entire chapter before jumping to conclusions here:

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Here's how KJV translates vs 6:

6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Paul spoke many things by permission and not as commandment, to address a specific needs of these churches. You have to devolve your own application, but not by ignoring the historical and cultural contexts involved.

Faith and faith alone is quite different in that manner as it is a universal theme of the Bible. I don't see this Paul's view of marriage repeated by other authors, which leads me to believe that he was addressing a specific case.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

seeing celibacy as the ideal and marriage as a compromise is just wrong-headed, IMO.

I follow how someone can understand Paul as saying that but I don't. I don't see that he is saying celibacy is ideal - only that it better suits one to carry the gospel.

[Robert]

You need to read the entire chapter before jumping to conclusions here:

....5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [color:#FF0000]6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am [self-controlled]. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

He gives advice in verse 5, not a command. That doesn't deny that one reason for marriage is due to sexual weakness.

[fccool]

It does not prove it to be an iron rule either. Paul states that this is his reasoning and not a command. He ONLY does it with this issue of remaining single and remaining a virgin... why? Maybe because it is not a command from God, but Paul's understanding based on the times he lived in?

Like in our case Paul could say something along the lines, it is better to buy some kind of car than to walk or depend on hitchhikers... not a command, but reasoning based on experience.

[Robert]

It does not prove it to be an iron rule either. Paul states that this is his reasoning and not a command.

Let's stick with the context. Here it is:

5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Verse 6 is with respect to verse 5. That's the context.

verse 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Verse 6 is not linked to verse 8! So here Paul is stating a fact. It is better to marry then live a life of immorality.

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis [Christians being persecuted? The decay of Roman?], I think that it is good for you to remain as you are (virgins).

27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Okay the context of the last part of verse 28 applies to life in Roman, but not exclusively. This world is still under Lucifer's rule. He, as Paul states, is "the god of this world." Even Christ didn't dispute this fact. Let's look at this:

Luke 4:5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, [color:#000099]for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to."

Okay...here's my advice concerning marriage. Like Paul it's not a command, but rather common sense based on human nature.

1] If you are not weak sexually, don't get married. Why? You will have problems because you are not just dealing with yourself; you are also dealing with your other half. Besides, generally speaking, men and women think very different and this in itself creates tension. Yes, it's better to marry than live a loose life.

2] Don't have kids. Why? There are no guarantees in this life. There are no guarantees that they will be ultimately saved.

My thinking is this: Why bring a child into a dying world polluted with all its problems under its god, Lucifer?

That's advice and it's free. This will no doubt "p" some folks off.

Robert

[Robert]

Robert, I'm sensing a theme in your recent posts that suggest your own marriage has hit some rocks, now or in the past.

Every marriage has problems at one time or another. Hence Paul's advice.

[Robert]

Okay...here's my advice concerning marriage. Like Paul it's not a command, but rather common sense based on human nature.

Oh yes, number three: The divorce rate between non-Christians and Christians is about the same. First time marriages have over a 50% failure rate. 2nd and 3rd...forget about it! Does that mean all marriages fail? No, but it isn’t easy. Been there, still doing it.... Marriage is work (I'm talking to the young folks)...it isn't all about sex, sex and more sex. Sooner or later you have to get out of bed and unless you've built a marriage around trust and commitment first the sex won't carry your marriage through.

More free advice with no charge.

Rob

[Robert]

... there is a serious theological question here. Can Paul be mistaken on this issue in the Bible.

Dude, no disrespect meant, but I have a hard time buying into your view here because of your other view on evolution. Maybe you should lean a bit more on God's word and less on men's view.

Rob

[John317]

Quote:

Aside from the personal question, there is a serious theological question here. Can Paul be mistaken on this issue in the Bible. Does inspiration stop him, for example? Can he be wrong on this and still right on justification by faith?

Is it a legitimate question to ask whether Paul's teachings on this issue are consistent with Jesus'? And with the rest of the Bible?

Is it legitimate to ask whether perhaps Paul, who was unmarried, had a balanced perspective on the issue, given that he was not given specific visions or instructions from God on the issue?

Doesn't this kind of reasoning about the Scriptures result in people picking and choosing what they want to believe and accept in the Bible rather than accepting the whole Bible as God's Word?

One problem with it, as I see it, is that it makes it easy to discard what the Bible says if we find it doesn't agree with our personal knowledge or understanding. It seems to me that we ought to try to see how our understanding or knowledge may be in error before we jump to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong.

There's also the issue of faith and obedience. The root cause of sin was that Eve chose her human understanding over God's word. I think we have to learn to trust God's Word, and trust our human understanding a lot less when it appears to contradict the plain teachings of the Bible.

When we begin thinking this way, that Paul was wrong, what's to keep us also from concluding that maybe Jesus was wrong about the who he was and about the second coming? Or, is it possible also that Moses and Paul were wrong about homosexuality being sinful? Why arbitrarily select Paul's doctrine of justification by faith as something we can have confidence in?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[fccool]

My thinking is this: Why bring a child into a dying world polluted with all its problems under its god, Lucifer?

This is a sad rationalization that eugenics uses... In view of our temporary human suffering it may seem at times(just like Job noted) that it would have been better for us not to be born at all. BUT life on earth is NOT all suffering... especially in moderately developed countries. I might buy this argument in starving countries of Africa, where I think they should think before bringing more children in that environment. But to deprive a child all of the joys of life because of that... I think choosing life is much more sensible, and less selfish. God did put a choice of that matter into our hands for a reason.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

... there is a serious theological question here. Can Paul be mistaken on this issue in the Bible.

Dude, no disrespect meant, but I have a hard time buying into your view here because of your other view on evolution. Maybe you should lean a bit more on God's word and less on men's view.

Rob

Two things happened when I read this.

First, I thought "That was a pretty direct statement."

Second, I said "YEAH!!"

[Dr. Shane]

I appreciate that Bravus feels comfortable here enough to share his doubts about total Biblical inspiration. I think he should be free to share such doubts without being insulted for his honesty in the matter. Let's try to be respectful with each other while disagreeing.