Posted by John on November 10, 2001 at 22:55:55:
In Reply to: Re: verses- help me find one or more posted by jonvon on November 09, 2001 at 21:27:33:
Nicely put. But here's my opinion. I looked up the Strong's word for "sexual Immorality" it was originally translated in the King James as fornication, which differs from the other common sexual taboo mentioned in the Bible, that being adultery. I then looked up the words in an English dictionary and adultery as most know is sex with another's spouse, or cheating on one's own spouse. But fornication is defined as consensual sex between two unmarried persons. This pretty conclusively sows up the meaning as far as semantics goes in my mind. But as Cindi was saying it leads to wondering what exactly qualifies as marriage. Of course if we were Catholic this would be easy because legal and church authority have a human agent. But as we don't go in for that, what does qualify as marriage? Obviously God wouldn't be concerned with our arbirtrary papers of marriage. So then is it the ceremony before the body of beleivers that makes two people married? Again I doubt God is really concered with this. I think the truth is in the relation between the two people and God. Are they committed and married before God in their own hearts?
Of course this invites all the abuses and criticisms regarding using the believer's freedom to sin, but we all know the quote that, "If no one in your church is using grace as an excuse to sin, you aren't preaching grace." (thanks Steve, you taught me that) But to view the other side, there could reasonably be a demonstration of this committment publicly to declare that it is true, much like baptism, or even the sinner's prayer (my point being that the reality of the matter is in the heart, but by the deeds the heart can be judged) So I can sort of see both sides, and have myself seen circumstances where people claimed to have this committment and so thought it okay to sleep together only to split at the first signs of trouble. So in essence just as Jonvon alluded to, you can't escape the responsiblity of the believer's freedom. God knew what he was doing when he set things up. The heart is a much more difficult thing to tame than human opinion. It is easy convince men that you are right, but the heart is much more difficult to lie to. And God places the judgment there. (not the condemnation type of judgement, but the discernment type.)
So anyway we are back to the place wehre we started, basically we all understand to some degree that sex outside of marriage is frowned upon, but we are forced to accept that there are no easy answers. This is good. This prevents men from setting up their own kingdoms and claiming they are built on God's revelation. Pretty smart to keep us all guessing so we HAVE to depend on his leading. But anyway, there has to be something said for concensus. And it appears to me that the greater majority of level-headed Christian evangelical (and quasi-almost-partially-evangelical, or at least not wacky or otherwise assimilated) people pretty much accept that the marriage certificate of some government, or proof of marriage by some clergy is needed to qualify a couple as married. So while we all like to be boat-rockers (and this coming form the one who gets extreme pleasure from capsizing paradigm rafts) I think there is a general floating principle here to grasp.
I would say in my stupid and opinionated estimation that if a couple is claiming to be followers of Christ there is a certain standard of things they have submitted to. They'll know deep in side if they are trying to get by with something. And not that it matters what others think, but is there any reason a couple who thinks they have made this committment to be married in god's eyes shouldn't go the next step and make it public by at least having some authority figure declare it and announce it? This stops the whole controversy. If you can't afford to do it legally at least have a ceremony or get a clergy to sign in a Bible or something. This avoids the appearance of evil that we are told to be careful of. So my long-winded question to Cindi is, What is this hypothetical couple that you mention really trying to prove? Is it purely an intellectual argument, or is it personal? That would dictate how you respond. Further, remember that if they have made no profession to follow God we have no reason to expect them to be bound by our "Christian" moral code. And we are called to love people where they are at.
Cindi please don't think I am in any way attacking you, or judging anyone. I realize that I come across harsh if you don't know me (even if you do I still come across harsh) I just have a very decisive and rigid thought process that comes from years of arguing hard issues for no reason (otherwise known as the study of philosophy). It's a flaw of mine that i can't reconcile my verbal violence and my actual love for people.
: ok, to ME the important part to understand is the flip side, not so much defining exactly when someone falls into "sexual immorality" but getting your heart around the truth in this piece: "Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."
: I mean, to me the whole thing centers around learning what living your life in the Spirit is about, falling in love with God, "clothing yourself with Christ". i really don't think any of the other stuff, getting an imprimatur (to use an old catholic word) stamped on your relationship, or getting married legally, is what the intent of the scripture is pointing at. i think in the end it is about what is in your heart, and what is in the heart of the person you are in relationship with. i have found that as i have understood this, that other things having to do with morality tend to work themselves out.
: think about it this way... there a plenty of scriptures about judgment, and many of them in the gospels where Jesus is teaching talk about trees and the fruit they bear. basically trees that produce good healthy fruit are "good trees" and trees that don't produce good fruit are "bad trees". so, the people are the trees and the fruit is the deeds they have done, and the intentions of their hearts in doing those deeds.
: well, since this is an analogy, how does a fruit tree develop its fruit in the real world? first it has to BE a certain kind of fruit tree. so it STARTS with identity, and in the life of a christian that goes back to the "born again" experience where you literally on some level become a "new creature" (there is scripture about this too). this is essentially an encounter with the spirit of God where you just know that something has happened and you are a new person. after that it is about growing in the spirit, which just means learning about the bible and praying and stuff. i mean it doesn't have to be incredibly complicated, its just about falling in love with God. to extend the analogy a bit further (i'm sure this must be painfully obvious) the word of God and prayer and so forth are like good soil and rain and sun that help the fruit tree grow and develop so that one day it will bear fruit. in our lives this is essentially works born from love. and so this feeds right back into the whole relationship thing, and it feeds into a lot of other stuff as well.
: so then as that scripture says "do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature", what happens is that as we are transformed from "glory to glory" as the bible talks about, we lose interest (hopefully) in gratifying the desires of the sinful nature. we "put on" another nature, a holy nature. in other words it comes FROM THE INSIDE OUT, not the outside in. that is the way it becomes real in our lives. so even if you were to correctly define exactly what sexual immorality is, it won't do you any good unless you are growing in Jesus, in God, from the inside out.
:
: thats MY take anyway...
:
: : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: : Okay thats VERY helpful. But if you will allow me to play the devils advocate for a moment. In all the verses you provided for me every mention of sexuality was worded "sexual immorality"...now to give more beef to the argument...where does it define "sexual imoratity" as opposed to "sexuality". reason? a couple is dedicated, devoted, livinig a good and moral life. but they have nver been 'married' in the eyes of the church [ie: no wedding ceremony performed by a cleric] or the state [no licence filed]...perhaps in their own eyes they've taken one another to 'to have and to hold, from this day forward....until death do us part' .... what then makes them "sexually immoral"?
: :
: : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~