Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
You always bless me with wisdom. Keep up the good work! Night night!
Preston Sprinkle?
- Thread starter therussellhome
- Start date
- Status
Grace is needed everywhere. Marriage between a man and a woman is not a substitute for grace enabling true chastity in keeping with the marriage relationship.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I understand that. But the Bible is perfectly clear that marriage is a (or the) means of grace to combat sexual immorality. 1 Cor. 7:2
Yet, for those struggling with homosexual sin, there has to be an inward altering of attraction, without the fulfillment of sexual gratification. And as the Spirit moves as it desires, that transformation may be soon, some time, or never. Notice Pauls buffeting; the response wasnt to take away the trouble 2 Cor. 12:9 , but that the grace to endure the trouble was sufficient. In the same way, God may choose not to transform a persons temptations; providing he provides the grace to resist acting on them. This is why I believe the sin of homosexuality needs specific treatment; because it is easy for someone to say the attraction is a sin; but if we are unable to change our own hearts, then it isnt us who are willfully sinning, but the flesh who is doing so apart from the will of the Spirit. Romans 7:15-20 So then, until God who is the dispenser of all graces, decides to transform a homosexuals attractions, they need support to resist said attractions; even if it means not having the same general grace to combat them, as those with heterosexual attractions have through marriage.
An unnatural sin, needs supernatural intervention to overcome. I have seen heathens stop doing drugs, become better husbands, stop gambling, stop drinking, stop swearing; I have yet to see a gay become straight outside the faith.
Last edited:
I appreciate where you're coming from, David, but I have two qualifications that I think are important.
First, there are dangers to speaking of marriage as a means of grace. That is not the standard understanding of the means of grace. And while marriage gives a legitimate outlet for blameless impulses, it remains the case that guilty impulses must be mortified inside of marriage, and not really by means of marriage (1 Thess. 4:3-5). "Once you're married, anything goes" is a damaging lie that can be used by abusive people to hide the reality of their actions from their spouses and themselves; we are to cultivate purity in married love also, by grace.
Second, "natural" sins also need supernatural intervention to overcome. We're familiar with one sin driving out another: idolatry expelling atheism, or pride exorcizing sloth. But that's just substitution.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Hearing this is better than having gold. When I was in my early twenties, I was exposed to some teachings like Mark Driscoll's. Even at that time, I thought they had a really weird view of sexual things in marriage. It always seems strange to me to hear a philosophy that basically said inside of marriage, it's healthy to fulfill any kind of fantasy one may have. But I always thought one must have a pretty heavy dose of fleshly passion, if they are fulfilling all sorts of crazy fantasies with their spouse. Like yeah, inside of marriage people have freedom, but what is going on inside of somebody's heart if they feel the need to do crazy things?
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
"heterosexual marriage is the avenue in which most heterosexual sexual temptation is remedied."
Ideally, yes. However many cannot marry, many marry to their detriment, and many marriages do not end up helping for so many various sinful and non sinful reasons.
Sexual temptation is not unique to the homosexually inclined person.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
"but if we are unable to change our own hearts, then it isnt us who are willfully sinning, but the flesh who is doing so apart from the will of the Spirit."
What is coveting but a heart sin? Yet we are forbidden to covet in the 10th commandment.
What is coveting but a heart sin? Yet we are forbidden to covet in the 10th commandment.
Can't the same thing can be said for heterosexual sin? For example, a man who is no longer sexually attracted to his wife, but he finds another woman (or women) desirable. This would also require an inward altering of attraction, without the fulfillment of sexual gratification. The only way he could gratify his sexual attraction to other women would be to commit adultery. There would need to be an inward altering of his attraction such that he would only desire sex with his wife.
Agreed.
One of the problems is the impoverished theological language and scaffolding that many Christian traditions have concerning union with Christ and sanctification. The notion that marriage is somehow a fix for heterosexual lust is not only un-Biblical but laughable for any man who has been married.
Owen on Sin and Mortification is still one of the best works on how sin is mortified and we are vivified toward the Spiritual. Anyone who is mature in Christ and has given battle to the Flesh for many years will understand the danger in treating any sin arising from the flesh as a special species of sin in terms of its remedy.
This is a big issue in the PCA with the rise of Revoice theology. The problem is that SSA, as such, is lumped into its own species and then those who struggle with it get the status of "unicorn" that the culture establishes for them. The notion of sexual orientation has captured the social imaginary and even the Side B proponents adopt this trend treating themselves as altogether different than those who struggle with lust.
There is very little discussion in these circles that sanctification cannot be "crowdsourced" by those who struggle with sSA and bring their Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian convictions into a meeting and then talk about what it means to live lives as celibate SSA. The status of the attraction differs. In the Roman Catholic schema, concupiscence is not sin. In the Reformed/Biblical schema, it is. In the Wesleyan/Charismatic schema, it can be healed. In the Biblical/Reformed schema, it must be constantly mortified.
Much of the "ex-Gay" ministry of the past was Charismatic/Wesleyan and this dominated not only how those with SSA believed they would heal temptation but also many of us who were part of Charismatic Churches (promise Keepers, anyone?)
The collapse of many Churches on homosexuality owes to an impoverished answer to why men and women who are Christians still experience sinful desires. Since the majority of Churches were in the Wesleyan/Charismatic camp they could once convince themselves that a person could just get permanent healing (victory) over their temptation. The "fact that people who loved Christ didn't seem to be able to shake SSA caused them not to question a faulty view of sanctification but whether or not God was really against SSA as morays changed in the culture. Either that or, as the culture goes, they adjust their perception of SSA as being a "unicorn" status and those of us with just "lust" aren't really like the unicorns and they need some sort of special way to deal with a temptation that is not common to man (completely the opposite of what Paul says about our temptation).
Sadly, just like in other theological conversations, the Reformed/Biblical view is often ignored but it has had the answers and scaffolding for this for centuries. This is why, when the PCA Study Report on Human Sexuality came out, it seemed remarkable to some that our Standards were helpful to answer the question but it was not a surprise to me because I have known what it's like to mortify sin for many years and have never considered SSA to be a "unicorn" thing. Harvest USA has been faithfully ministering to men and women for years before it became cool to be homosexual and they haven't had to adjust the basic message about grace to sinners in Christ.
BTW, for those who really want to study Sin, this is a masterpiece:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I have been thinking a lot about this lately with regard to any one who struggles with sexual sin but especially, those with SSA. I think there has been way too much back bending, accommodation and winsomeness to create safe spaces for them. Undeniably Christ is a safe space and so is the church but, repentance is seldom preached.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I really dont know how viewing marriage as a preventative for sexual immorality, as the Bible describes it, became a invitation to sexual deviancy; or "anything goes," attitude because of it, that wasnt my intent; nor do I think it is the intent of scriptures. Nevertheless, scripture is plain that marriage is to be the preventative against fornication; and that we are to get married if we cannot practice self-control because of the rampant nature of sexual immorality 1 Cor. 7:2. Does this mean that either spouse will not be tempted towards lusts or adultery? No. But unlike the SSA, they do have an outlet to express their sexual desires when the time arises 1 Cor. 7:5 If this isnt enough to quell their desires, it is still a step ahead of those who do not have this option; otherwise they form a union void of authentic attraction.
After marriage, if it is within ones ability; I think loving ones spouse would entail remaining attractive for them; i.e. not letting oneself go. This would be in the realm of laying ones life down for them. In the cases of extreme accidents, then it wouldnt be a matter of question whether one spouse loved the other, since their goal to attract, or to look beautiful/handsome for them isnt neglected based on laziness, but inability. Unfortunately, some people do use marriage as an excuse to put on 100lbs, to no longer groom themselves properly, or simply have the attitude that the "prey is caught" no need for further effort to attract it. Does this stifle all possibilities of of potential adulterious desires? Of course not. But it is far better than not caring at all. And besides that, holiness is true beauty; whether it is debatable if self-care would be included within the realm of matrimonial holiness or self-denial.
Again, if one struggling from same-sex attraction has no original attraction to the opposite sex, it isnt a matter of neglect from a heterosexual relationship that would possibly stifle their attraction, but it is a precursor depravity that onsets the relationship with this issue; and I dont know how many would counsel people to get married if in the least there isnt a formal attraction? Maybe I'm off and this is the answer for some, I dunno?
I understand that all sin needs grace, and all good things come from above; and my point is not to say that those who sin by way of SSA need coddling. Only that it is a sin which is uncommon, and as such many simply will not know how to give support. All they will offer is "pray the gay away." And while that is a significant part of our warfare, in reality, God sometimes allows this struggle for a season, and other times for a lifetime. I am not suggesting we call sinful lusts; whether gay or straight unsinful, it is sin; in the realm that even if our actions are perfect our thoughts would condemn us; yet, there is a contrast between temptation, and acting on it. My concern is that the acting on it could use better support until the transformation, which is only wrought by God, takes place in lue of not having the same outlet of marriage as those who lust heterosexually.
And, as far as marriage being a means of grace; I most likely misspoke, as I only intended to mean marriage is the prescribed biblical preventative against sexual immorality, fornication, and Satans sexual temptations (as I understand 1 Cor. explaining.)
Thank you all for this good conversation. I will think about what has been written. God Bless.
After marriage, if it is within ones ability; I think loving ones spouse would entail remaining attractive for them; i.e. not letting oneself go. This would be in the realm of laying ones life down for them. In the cases of extreme accidents, then it wouldnt be a matter of question whether one spouse loved the other, since their goal to attract, or to look beautiful/handsome for them isnt neglected based on laziness, but inability. Unfortunately, some people do use marriage as an excuse to put on 100lbs, to no longer groom themselves properly, or simply have the attitude that the "prey is caught" no need for further effort to attract it. Does this stifle all possibilities of of potential adulterious desires? Of course not. But it is far better than not caring at all. And besides that, holiness is true beauty; whether it is debatable if self-care would be included within the realm of matrimonial holiness or self-denial.
Again, if one struggling from same-sex attraction has no original attraction to the opposite sex, it isnt a matter of neglect from a heterosexual relationship that would possibly stifle their attraction, but it is a precursor depravity that onsets the relationship with this issue; and I dont know how many would counsel people to get married if in the least there isnt a formal attraction? Maybe I'm off and this is the answer for some, I dunno?
I understand that all sin needs grace, and all good things come from above; and my point is not to say that those who sin by way of SSA need coddling. Only that it is a sin which is uncommon, and as such many simply will not know how to give support. All they will offer is "pray the gay away." And while that is a significant part of our warfare, in reality, God sometimes allows this struggle for a season, and other times for a lifetime. I am not suggesting we call sinful lusts; whether gay or straight unsinful, it is sin; in the realm that even if our actions are perfect our thoughts would condemn us; yet, there is a contrast between temptation, and acting on it. My concern is that the acting on it could use better support until the transformation, which is only wrought by God, takes place in lue of not having the same outlet of marriage as those who lust heterosexually.
And, as far as marriage being a means of grace; I most likely misspoke, as I only intended to mean marriage is the prescribed biblical preventative against sexual immorality, fornication, and Satans sexual temptations (as I understand 1 Cor. explaining.)
Thank you all for this good conversation. I will think about what has been written. God Bless.
Last edited:
therussellhome
Puritan Board Freshman
As always, I really appreciate everyone's insight (even the side discussions). You have certainly knocked Sprinkle's book of my list (at least until such time as I'm mature enough to not be mislead by it). Thanks to @Semper Fidelis I've got two books to replace it .
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Indeed. Mr. Sprinkle affirms and promotes (somewhat aggressively) a host of positions that are progressive in nature. He may be best described as a progressive Therapeutic Gospel proponent. W/regard to the question of the OP, why nibble on moldy green cheese when fresh pure stuff is available?
Do be clear about what I affirm and deny, I do not deny that marriage is a help for lust. What I deny is that it is a cure for it. Paul says much more about lust than recommending that people get married.
My point about the SSA issue was not to deny an ongoing struggle but to clearly affirm it. What I deny is that their battle against the flesh is wholly unique. Some Christian traditions might have considered that the temptation was located in something especially repugnant in the person who was attracted to it, but a Biblical understanding of corruption understands that what comes from the flesh is inherent in us all. In other words, there is not a "species" of corruption in me that is not in someone else. Puritans spoke of the idea that the corruption to commit or be tempted by any kind of sin is in us all. Some of us may have greater proclivities to one kind of sin over another but that which is being put to death is not, itself, unique.
I would like for healthy Churches to so teach our corruption and Christ's remedy for it in such a way that sin strugglers of all kinds can understand that there is no temptation or sin that delays them from coming to Christ. There is no ongoing temptation or struggle that is not common to their brothers and Sisters in terms of how it is to be put to death. I would I would also love to see the Church stop reflecting the culture where the only way to be "authentic" is to graphically be named by the sins we are tempted by instead of understanding that we can confess and name our sins but are no longer named by them in Christ.
The salutary benefit of this controversy is that it has caused many in the PCA to study what was neglected in our Conefession and Catechisms. I sat across from a TE in 2019 who denied the sinfulness of internal temptation until I pointed it out in our Confession. We had lived through prior periods of blatant antinomianism from the teaching ministry of TE Tullian Tchividjian and that hadn't been sufficient to get the PCA to truly study what we believe concerning how we battle sin and grow in grace. Seemingly "respectable" sins can be overlooked (until Tullian committed adultery) but Revoice thankfully forced us to figure out what we believe. The thing about what we ended up saying about SSA was ultimately how it needed to be battled and sanctified in the same way as other sins. To the culture that sees lust in the category of personhood, it probably seemed oppressive but to the Christian seeking solidarity with other sinners, it was welcome.
- Status
