Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sex in New Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Then again, in the relevant passages (Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20), Jesus does not say that the Mosaic Law in general would be abrogated. Sure, elsewhere in Scripture that is said but not here; should we then import such an understanding?
    I don't see how those chapters relate to what you're arguing. It actually confirms what I said before -- that the law would instead give way to what God initially intended, that we love God with all our heart and mind, and love our neighborhood as ourselves, as opposed to following specific outward covenants and ordinances.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
      If people could still reproduce, you do know what would happen to the population correct? And what's the point of sex? Other than reproducing and strengthening the marriage bond.
      Yeah. I'm pondering what's the (creational) point of male/female-ness besides reproduction and to express a certain unity. Granted then that the unity of "one flesh" and reproduction doesn't exist anymore in the age to come, is there any more point to maleness and femaleness?

      On another note, I realised that I erred by relying only on the passage in Matthew; I should have looked at the parallels earlier, because the Lukan passage is different...I'll need to go and think about this issue more.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        If people could still reproduce, you do know what would happen to the population correct? And what's the point of sex? Other than reproducing and strengthening the marriage bond.
        I've always wondered why the universe was so vast and what all those billions of empty planets out there were for. But that's admittedly just a theory of mine and totally off topic.

        Comment


        • #19
          Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

          I've wondered for a long time what passage he was referring to, but haven't been able to find it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            I don't see how those chapters relate to what you're arguing. It actually confirms what I said before -- that the law would instead give way to what God initially intended, that we love God with all our heart and mind, and love our neighborhood as ourselves, as opposed to following specific outward covenants and ordinances.
            You said earlier that
            "Remember he was having a discussion with people whose whole lives revolved around the Mosaic law and that it would still be instituted in the new world to come. They were asking Jesus specifically a marriage problem under the Mosaic law. The point was that we will be like the angels in the sense that the law is no longer an obligation to us... that yoke is permanently broken. So the moral is that the woman will not be under any marriage obligation to any of the men in their analogy after resurrection because the law is nullified."
            The problem with this view is that Jesus doesn't respond by saying that "oh, the Mosaic Law no longer applies after death". He refers to the angels- who were never under the Mosaic Law; He says that marriage will no longer exist- and marriage wasn't instituted by Mosaic Law; He argues from the fact that after the resurrection people will no longer die.

            Comment


            • #21
              Marriage only applies until death. The fact that people never die therefore makes marriage obsolete.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                It is quite interesting that you should initiate a thread touching on this subject, Paprika. I posted a thread sometime in 2012 (I believe) regarding this same basic subject on T-Web in its former state (well before the site crashed in mid-2013).
                Thanks. I'll see if I can dig it up in the Wayback Archives.
                I am not meaning to insinuate that sexual relations in general are "unclean" (especially between a believing husband and wife). I am merely noting that sexual relations will not be present in the Kingdom in the coming age. This observation can only lead me to conclude that God instituted marriage as a temporary construct (albeit a sacred one). The ultimate marriage union is between Christ and the Church (cf. Ephesians 5:31,32). Believers are presently betrothed to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) and are awaiting the Groom's return to take his Bride for himself (Revelation 19:6-10).
                Agreed. The union between husband and wife (amongst other things) appears to be a signpost(?), in a sense, of Christ and the church. (I can't think of a good word).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Thanks. I'll see if I can dig it up in the Wayback Archives.
                  I'm afraid you will not be able to find it. They were unable to recover the data. (I asked Cerebrum123 this a couple of months ago.)

                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Agreed. The union between husband and wife (amongst other things) appears to be a signpost(?), in a sense, of Christ and the church. (I can't think of a good word).
                  Perhaps we may refer to the marriage union between a man and a woman to be a type or an illustration of believers' union to Christ (which will not be fully realized until Jesus returns).

                  In the Genesis account, woman is created in order that man may have a suitable companion in the Garden. None of the animals could fulfill this role. Ultimately, it would appear the woman was created in order to bring man closer to God (she is referred to as man's "helper"), but as it turned out, Adam chose allegiance to Eve over the Creator when he imitated her disobedience. Unfortunately, this pattern of preferring the creature to the Creator has been repeating itself throughout human history ever since (Romans 1:18ff.).
                  For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                    Isn't the main purpose for sex reproduction? That function would be unnecessary if no one ever died.
                    It would seem best to think of sexual relations between a man and a woman primarily in terms of forming the closest human intimacy possible by the two becoming united in flesh (and, optimally, in heart and mind as well). This is when the "oneness" of a husband and a wife is to be formed and reach its climax (in quite a literal fashion, actually). It seems a mistake to me to view sex as primarily a means of reproduction (although it certainly is the vehicle for that). Sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife establishes the man's close bond with the woman (and vice versa), first and foremost. The temporary institution of marriage is to reflect Christ's love for the Church and her reverential submission to him for his great self-sacrificial love for her.
                    Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-27-2014, 10:35 AM.
                    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Isn't the main purpose for sex reproduction? That function would be unnecessary if no one ever died.
                      The Bible states that the purpose of sexual union is that the two become one flesh. Procreation is not the principal aim of marriage, for all that it is important.
                      Genesis cites the reason for creating both genders, and again, that reason is not based on procreation.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        The Bible states that the purpose of sexual union is that the two become one flesh. Procreation is not the principal aim of marriage, for all that it is important.
                        Genesis cites the reason for creating both genders, and again, that reason is not based on procreation.
                        Yes (cf. message #24 above).
                        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I think that humans need pleasure just as God does. God's pleasure is in our acts of righteousness, when we glorify him (worship), basically in His children. But He created us to need pleasure as well, and although we can argue that our pleasure should come from fulfilling our covenant to God, and will most likely be incredibly enhanced in in the coming age, having a strong desire to glory God. I think that it is a well upheld argument to assert that the spirit is tied to the flesh, having fleshly desires because of the temple, but these desires are not necessarily sinful, because nothing is unclean in itself. If we get new bodies, that doesn't mean much changes, we will still be within flesh, our image, the image of God, it will be a glorified flesh. The desires of our flesh will be intact, other-wise God would be reshaping His creation to obey His will, not likely. Humans are wired with a desire for sex, it will most likely be apart of the coming age, humans will still be in need of each other, opposites of course, because they will be in flesh. Jesus said we are to become like angels, but they can still rebel against God, they still had fleshly desires toward the women on earth in Gen 6 (just wait til they see the glorified women). If we are to be like angels, we will have the same struggles they have.
                          Last edited by IamLives; 03-28-2014, 11:31 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Are you saying that people will have desires and get married, or that people will have sex without marriage, or that people will have desires they cannot satisfy?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Did Adam and Eve marry in the traditional sense we call marriage? My understanding is that once God "resets" the world, everything will go back to the situation in the garden of Eden before the fall (a la Rev 22).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                Did Adam and Eve marry in the traditional sense we call marriage? My understanding is that once God "resets" the world, everything will go back to the situation in the garden of Eden before the fall (a la Rev 22).
                                In the OT, sexual intercourse was tantamount to marriage. If that is true in the New Earth, and if there's no marriage in the New Earth, then there's no sexual intercourse either. A lot of "ifs" there of course. This does not appear to be a topic that God cares for us to know much about.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X