Where I am

[princesa]

This is where I am. Doing damage to my own will in order to submit to His. It is painful and I don't always succeed, but I do notice it brings peace to the moment and something else, something in me I know is being awakened.

That's new.

I've only read about internal battles of both wills. When your life is spent on giving in to your own you feel entitled but to submit to His can cause you to cry,cause your mind to fight desperately to reason it's way back into your old ways and you grudgingly do what you most do not want to do. But you do it, because you don't want to find yourself in the same place that made you feel lost. You were blessed to be given the truth of how to escape. Our Lord never pleads with us, He doesn't beg us to do His will. Our Master states it clearly and then leaves it to us. If we don't follow, He is patient but He will restate it until we submit in order to grow.

[RBerman]

Good to hear from you! I pray that God's Spirit will continue to draw you to himself and conform you to the image of his Son.

[Thoughtful Monk]

This is where I am. Doing damage to my own will in order to submit to His. It is painful and I don't always succeed, but I do notice it brings peace to the moment and something else, something in me I know is being awakened.

That's new.

I've only read about internal battles of both wills. When your life is spent on giving in to your own you feel entitled but to submit to His can cause you to cry,cause your mind to fight desperately to reason it's way back into your old ways and you grudgingly do what you most do not want to do. But you do it, because you don't want to find yourself in the same place that made you feel lost. You were blessed to be given the truth of how to escape. Our Lord never pleads with us, He doesn't beg us to do His will. Our Master states it clearly and then leaves it to us. If we don't follow, He is patient but He will restate it until we submit in order to grow.

Giving up your own will is a tough fight. I sometimes think that the church does not do anyone a favor when they understate how difficult it is to be a disciple. There's a little too much of "they all became Christians, studied their Bibles, and lived happily ever after" for my taste these days.

I hope God will sustain you in your path. Better life in Hell with Jesus than life in Heaven without Him.

For me, I find the giving up is like the kid who wants to be a great baseball player. However no matter how hard he works at it, being a baseball player isn't going to happen. Then he has to deal with the pain of a lost dream. These days I am finding that giving my will means giving up hope for things (not necessarily sinful) that I want in my life. The struggle is the emptiness that follows when I don't have my dream and nothing to fill the place. (I hope that's not too discouraging for you.)

May God keep you in your presences always.

[The Remonstrant]

This is where I am. Doing damage to my own will in order to submit to His. It is painful and I don't always succeed, but I do notice it brings peace to the moment and something else, something in me I know is being awakened.

That's new.

I've only read about internal battles of both wills. When your life is spent on giving in to your own you feel entitled but to submit to His can cause you to cry,cause your mind to fight desperately to reason it's way back into your old ways and you grudgingly do what you most do not want to do. But you do it, because you don't want to find yourself in the same place that made you feel lost. You were blessed to be given the truth of how to escape. Our Lord never pleads with us, He doesn't beg us to do His will. Our Master states it clearly and then leaves it to us. If we don't follow, He is patient but He will restate it until we submit in order to grow.

Princesa, I don't wish to pry (and perhaps I'm overlooking something), but when you speak of submitting to God's will, what will are you specifically referring to? God's moral will? In Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, for example, believers are exhorted of God's will or desire for us to be sanctified (or sexually pure), abstaining from uncleanness or impurity. In the fifth chapter also, we're told to be thankful in all circumstances (God's universal moral preceptive desire or will for believers).

Yet I perceive you are somewhat vague in your message. And that's fine. But I do wish for you to consider, when you think of submitting to "God's will", perhaps more particularly what that means. As I am typing this, I do not know what brand of theology you ascribe to. Perhaps it is deterministic in nature. Obviously, I have a different view of things (see username). I can't "speak" to your situation (if that's how it's phrased) particularly. While it is true God is sovereign, other forces, or rather, other spirits and free agents are at work in the world, There are angels and demons and a whole host of things taking place entirely unbeknownst to us. I write this because it could be (I don't know) your submitting to God is not so much pertaining to a moral issue or command as it is a spiritual attack of some sort of resignation (I own the market on unholy resignation [just to note]). Forgive me if this is entirely spoken in ignorance and a word in undue season.

Let me say one more thing: God is good. That doesn't change. God's character never changes. It's us, our mind, emotions, circumstances -- all like an insane roller coaster. And sometimes -- perhaps a lot of the times -- we don't really think God is good. That's just a dumb cliché and it's really not... real to us. But Christians aren't supposed to talk that way. We're more pious than Job, David, Solomon, the psalmists, &c. Let's just play the happy songs, clap our hands and live wholly in holy denial. Food, festivals, activities, feigned outward shows of happiness. Perhaps someone might think we're ungodly if we don't do those things.

Perhaps there's some things here for you to ponder; maybe I'm totally off base. But this is only something for you to ask and ponder yourself: Are you absolutely certain whatever it is you're having to do in order to "submit" to the will of God is totally and unequivocally revealed in his word as his will (as in moral commands)? Is the yoke you are bearing, and believe you must and/or ought to be bearing, truly the revealed will of God? Or could it perhaps be what you are convinced now is God's will is more Satan's work in your life than anything else? Always recognize you have an enemy.

[Scrawly]

Princesa, I don't wish to pry (and perhaps I'm overlooking something), but when you speak of submitting to God's will, what will are you specifically referring to? God's moral will? In Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, for example, believers are exhorted of God's will or desire for us to be sanctified (or sexually pure), abstaining from uncleanness or impurity. In the fifth chapter also, we're told to be thankful in all circumstances (God's universal moral preceptive desire or will for believers).

Yet I perceive you are somewhat vague in your message. And that's fine. But I do wish for you to consider, when you think of submitting to "God's will", perhaps more particularly what that means. As I am typing this, I do not know what brand of theology you ascribe to. Perhaps it is deterministic in nature. Obviously, I have a different view of things (see username). I can't "speak" to your situation (if that's how it's phrased) particularly. While it is true God is sovereign, other forces, or rather, other spirits and free agents are at work in the world, There are angels and demons and a whole host of things taking place entirely unbeknownst to us. I write this because it could be (I don't know) your submitting to God is not so much pertaining to a moral issue or command as it is a spiritual attack of some sort of resignation (I own the market on unholy resignation [just to note]). Forgive me if this is entirely spoken in ignorance and a word in undue season.

Let me say one more thing: God is good. That doesn't change. God's character never changes. It's us, our mind, emotions, circumstances -- all like an insane roller coaster. And sometimes -- perhaps a lot of the times -- we don't really think God is good. That's just a dumb cliché and it's really not... real to us. But Christians aren't supposed to talk that way. We're more pious than Job, David, Solomon, the psalmists, &c. Let's just play the happy songs, clap our hands and live wholly in holy denial. Food, festivals, activities, feigned outward shows of happiness. Perhaps someone might think we're ungodly if we don't do those things.

Perhaps there's some things here for you to ponder; maybe I'm totally off base. But this is only something for you to ask and ponder yourself: Are you absolutely certain whatever it is you're having to do in order to "submit" to the will of God is totally and unequivocally revealed in his word as his will (as in moral commands)? Is the yoke you are bearing, and believe you must and/or ought to be bearing, truly the revealed will of God? Or could it perhaps be what you are convinced now is God's will is more Satan's work in your life than anything else? Always recognize you have an enemy.

Amen!

[princesa]

Princesa, I don't wish to pry (and perhaps I'm overlooking something), but when you speak of submitting to God's will, what will are you specifically referring to? God's moral will? In Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, for example, believers are exhorted of God's will or desire for us to be sanctified (or sexually pure), abstaining from uncleanness or impurity. In the fifth chapter also, we're told to be thankful in all circumstances (God's universal moral preceptive desire or will for believers).

Yet I perceive you are somewhat vague in your message. And that's fine. But I do wish for you to consider, when you think of submitting to "God's will", perhaps more particularly what that means. As I am typing this, I do not know what brand of theology you ascribe to. Perhaps it is deterministic in nature. Obviously, I have a different view of things (see username). I can't "speak" to your situation (if that's how it's phrased) particularly. While it is true God is sovereign, other forces, or rather, other spirits and free agents are at work in the world, There are angels and demons and a whole host of things taking place entirely unbeknownst to us. I write this because it could be (I don't know) your submitting to God is not so much pertaining to a moral issue or command as it is a spiritual attack of some sort of resignation (I own the market on unholy resignation [just to note]). Forgive me if this is entirely spoken in ignorance and a word in undue season.

Let me say one more thing: God is good. That doesn't change. God's character never changes. It's us, our mind, emotions, circumstances -- all like an insane roller coaster. And sometimes -- perhaps a lot of the times -- we don't really think God is good. That's just a dumb cliché and it's really not... real to us. But Christians aren't supposed to talk that way. We're more pious than Job, David, Solomon, the psalmists, &c. Let's just play the happy songs, clap our hands and live wholly in holy denial. Food, festivals, activities, feigned outward shows of happiness. Perhaps someone might think we're ungodly if we don't do those things.

Perhaps there's some things here for you to ponder; maybe I'm totally off base. But this is only something for you to ask and ponder yourself: Are you absolutely certain whatever it is you're having to do in order to "submit" to the will of God is totally and unequivocally revealed in his word as his will (as in moral commands)? Is the yoke you are bearing, and believe you must and/or ought to be bearing, truly the revealed will of God? Or could it perhaps be what you are convinced now is God's will is more Satan's work in your life than anything else? Always recognize you have an enemy.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive from you a lovely private message regarding this post. Sorry it took a while to respond, I'm not here much. I will reread this when I have more time as I just gave it a cursory but wanted to respond.

I was being purposely vague as I didn't feel compelled to disclose anything specific on here. It was like a spur of the moment 'i want to share this somewhere to no one person in particular' kind of feeling. When I stated God's will, I refer to things I'm doing that goes against a godly, kind and spiritually fulfilling action (like holding grudges, or perhaps judging others).

one thing you wrote 'your submitting to God is not so much pertaining to a moral issue or command as it is a spiritual attack of some sort of resignation'. Let's use the example of a bad habit here, is what you're referring to in the latter part of this statement that you feel inwardly convicted that what you're doing is wrong so, no matter how much it pains you, you give up this habit as it is a moral issue, and, if so, how does that differ from the first part of the statement?

I do appreciate the time you took to write and I am looking forward to reading it more in depth so I can respond better either in pm or here since I'm leaving work now. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

[The Remonstrant]

I was being purposely vague as I didn't feel compelled to disclose anything specific on here.

It's all good. I had a hunch it was intentional (which is why I'm not pushing it).

It was like a spur of the moment 'i want to share this somewhere to no one person in particular' kind of feeling. When I stated God's will, I refer to things I'm doing that goes against a godly, kind and spiritually fulfilling action (like holding grudges, or perhaps judging others).

Just two quick notes regarding the dual grudge-holding and judging people (as they are the two examples you gave), now that I have something to work with.

First, being resentful toward someone who has hurt you and genuinely not repented just so happens to be perfectly natural. Of course, we're called to a higher plane. In such a case, having the disposition to forgive the other already in your heart should they repent is essential for (1) your mental, physical and spiritual health, (2) your status as a disciple of Christ. (3) Unfortunately, it does no harm to the other party and is more of a way for them to possibly gain more power over you (twisted, I know). (Just as an aside, I speak of forgiveness I believe in a more biblical sense as opposed to the foolish notion of dispensing and offering "unconditional forgiveness", even in cases of unrepentant abusers and the like where forgiveness has not so much as been solicited) (often linked with having been hurt by the other party.)

Second, many Christians have sadly never given serious thought to the contextually determined "no judgement" clause in Matthew 7. We are not to be undiscerning fools, that's for certain. "Be wise (or shrewd) as serpents and harmless (or gentle) as doves" (Matthew 10:16b). So in a very real sense it is good to learn to be discerning of the kind of people you are dealing with in real life, of what character they are. Then be equally as discerning in who you allow or disallow into your life. Some people are overly suspicious (perhaps because of temperament, abuse or recognizing their own innate untrustworthiness)and need to loosen up a little (or a whole lot). Others are overly trusting (by upbringing, genetic constitution, socialization or some combination of these). Conversely, this type needs to learn how to be more on their guard, not less.

Let's use the example of a bad habit here, is what you're referring to in the latter part of this statement that you feel inwardly convicted that what you're doing is wrong so, no matter how much it pains you, you give up this habit as it is a moral issue, and, if so, how does that differ from the first part of the statement?

Explicit Moral Commands, Matters of Conscience & Questionable Practices
Warning: The Following Content Is Not Intended for the Viewing of Young Children or Unsupervised Minors

Allow me to employ an outrageous example. Clearly, a biblical moral principle for all ages would be that human beings ought not murder one another (this as opposed to "just" killing, "just" war, genuine self-defense, capital punishment [in return as penalty for the committing of murder], &c.). No matter how one might "feel" about this divinely established law or principle, murder is strictly forbidden. Our subjective feelings, pangs (or lack of pangs) of conscience, strong conviction or weak conviction in favor or against the divine prohibition against murder, it really does not matter. This is a clear "black and white" issue, scripturally speaking.

What, then, of issues pertaining to conscience or liberty ("grey" areas, if you will)? Romans 14 would be our primary text. Though the immediate application of the chapter is dealing with differences of opinion pertaining to food and drink and special days of worship (apparently the dispute was primarily between Jewish and Gentile believers within the church of Rome during the first century), Romans 14 can (and does) have broader application to Christians throughout the ages regarding matters of liberty and conscience.

Entering upon an uneasy topic, take masturbation, for example. It may befuddle us, but Scripture does not anywhere specifically address the issue or practice (that some still attempt to use the passage in Genesis 38:8-10 to that effect is truly a desperate attempt to search for an explicit condemnation of the practice, whereas there is none). As express biblical texts are entirely lacking, most of the argumentation against the practice, of necessity, is reduced to philosophical objections.

(1) There are the "lust" arguments. While it is certainly possible to think impure thoughts engaging in masturbation, it is equally possible to conjure up impure thoughts apart from doing so.

(2) There are the "it isn't spiritual" objection. While not totally equivalent, allow me to pose this question: Is sneezing "spiritual"? or coughing? or vomiting? Blowing one's nose (so as to evacuate the nostrils of excess mucus? Is washing one's hands or bathing entirely "spiritual"? Eating and drinking? The problem is this hyper-spiritual "Christian" view of things. We are body and soul (or spirit). (Some theologians argue for a dualistic human nature, some a trichotomy and some even are anthropological monists. One thing is for certain, however, we are body. The centrality of the resurrection in the NT should wake some quarters of Christianity up in regards to the importance of the physical body in creation.)

(3) There are the "it's a selfish act" assertions. But personal hygiene also is, to some extent, "selfish", isn't it? And couldn't treating yourself to a Snickers bar or popping an aspirin for a headache you really could have lived through without medicating also be considered selfish? How about purchasing a DVD (or worse, a Blu-ray player)? I am inclined to categorize the "selfish act" objection also under the hyper-spiritual banner.

(4) "It would be preferable if God's people would not engage in it at all." We may well concede that. The problem? Not everyone is prepared to get married next week. And what if someone were married and the husband or wife is withholding sex, especially for an extended period of time (which is a fun game commonly played even in externally pious "Christian" homes -- don't let anyone fool you)? There are many other wonderful hypothetical questions one might think to pose along these lines.

So what's the deal? What should we make of an issue such as this? For all intents and purposes, it appears we are dealing with a "grey matter". As masturbation is nowhere condemned in Scripture, neither is it endorsed. Do we take the silence to be a condemnation of the practice (as Churches of Christ [a cappella] takes the New Testament's silence regarding the playing of musical instruments during worship services)? Or perhaps are we to assume every single reference to immorality or sexual immorality in the NT must (at least implicitly) presuppose masturbation is (at least) included?

That's just a sampling. I write this because I know it's an issue that generally not addressed seriously in Christian assemblies specifically. To state it bluntly: It is a practice you can assume nearly everyone engages in, but does not wish to discuss. There is a lot of shame, embarrassment and (often) guilt attached to this issue. The proverbial "elephant in the room", if you will. Yet when one comes to the stark reality that Scripture never specifically addresses it and some of the alleged "biblical" (re: philosophical) arguments appear dubious upon closer examination, the mind is freer to think upon this subject without all the shame attached. At some point we need to get real. Christians of all people ought to be balanced -- not given to course jesting and sophomoric or loose banter as the rest of the world, but not excessively uptight either. This is a real life issue affecting real people and perhaps our thinking needs to be reformed from the "absolutely not" dogmatist type of approach, or *whistles* "How's the weather?" non-approach to a not-so-clear matter.

Well, hopefully this will stir the thinking of someone. If not, at least my typing speed is improving.

[princesa]

my saintly thread topic has been tainted

: -)
I kid, and I appreciate all points of view even while disagreeing.

The first thing that popped in my head after reading your post was the book of Matthew. Somewhere in there is a statement to refrain from all sexual impurity.

Why would the bible state that? Does scripture ever state that sexual fulfillment should be shared between a man and a woman? What of Paul saying "Hey, it's better to be single but if you can't control yourself than go ahead and get married so you wont burn with lust". (he was more diplomatic i think, but that was the gist). Are we ignoring that because he wasn't specific or should we listen to inner convictions when they've served us well in the past?

Number one was a good point that wouldn't have occurred to me.

Number two- Sneezing, coughing, vomiting (unless your bulimic) and blowing your nose would never cause someone to feel inwardly convicted to shame. None are intentionally spiritual actions (neither is eating popcorn) however one causes guilt! That rascally last one. I agree that to say it is non-spritual alone is not a good argument. It does do something to the spirit however that brings the shame forward sometimes. Should the person be left to ignore it? Why does he permit it to be such a battle when he eats popcorn with such ease and no guilt. I'd like to think our spirit sometimes likes to konk us on the spiritual head with a little wake up call as to what's good for us. (I think that's scriptural [different wording])

Another point of view can be that, sometimes, 'getting real' also means listening to that conviction that's bringing you shame. The same conviction and shame that tells you being bulimic and vomiting is bad for your body and you have to fight it so your body can stay healthy, there is such a thing as spiritual unhealthiness and I believe, for some people, masturbating makes them spiritually unhealthy, it de-nourishes their spirit.And for them, that's getting real with themselves and has nothing to do with being uptight but 'right' in their view and the way they see their standing with God. To them, even thinking it's ok because it's not explicitly in the bible could be the enemy they're recognizing.

and yes, it did certainly stir my thinking this morning, but now I think I'll have some lunch and errr...maybe listen to Gungor's Beautiful Things, that song just nourishes my soul!

[The Remonstrant]

Caution: The Following Content Is Intended for Adults Only (or Supervised Minors)

The first thing that popped in my head after reading your post was the book of Matthew. Somewhere in there is a statement to refrain from all sexual impurity.

1 Thessalonians 4

You may be thinking more specifically of 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8. But this begs the question: Are we to assume the impurity Paul is speaking of includes the practice of masturbation? Contextually, is that view necessarily even warranted? Is it likely that this issue was even present in Paul's mind in his first letter to the church of the Thessalonians?

"For this is God’s will, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality, so that each of you knows how to control his own body in sanctification and honor" (vv. 3-4, HCSB*). (Literally, v. 4: "to possess his own vessel". Alternately, may be translated "to acquire his own wife". There is disagreement among interpreters as to what precisely Paul's meaning is.) Verse 6 tips us off that prohibited sexual acts involving others is more likely than anything in view: ". . . one must not transgress against and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger of all these [things] as we also previously told and warned you" (emphasis added). In other words, the sexual immorality Paul apparently is concerning himself is a community issue involving other individuals, not a private affair. One might wisely ask what on earth Paul would be talking about in regard to "defrauding" or "transgressing" against his (Christian) brother (or sister) through committing sexual immorality or impurity if he had the private act of masturbation in mind.

What of Paul saying "Hey, it's better to be single but if you can't control yourself than go ahead and get married so you wont burn with lust"[?] ([H]e was more diplomatic i think, but that was the gist). Are we ignoring that because he wasn't specific . . .

1 Corinthians 7

Again, context. Paul deals with a number of different issues affecting the highly egotistical, dysfunctional church of Corinth in the first century. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 Paul speaks to the ever present reality of sexual temptation for believers (vv. 1-2). Wives and husbands be dutiful to fulfill and not selfishly deprive each other sexually (re: play games, even under the pretense of religious piety [vv. 3-5]). Marriage is commended for those who lack self-control (vv. 6-8). Illegitimate divorce is discouraged (vv. 10-11) and the issue of unbelieving spouses is addressed, along with divorce as a result of desertion (vv. 12-16). Next, Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthian congregation to be content in the station they currently are in (vv. 17-24). Continuing along these lines, Paul addresses widows and the unmarried, more or less exhorting them not to be overly hasty in pursuing the married state (vv. 25-40).

Our primary concern is with vv. 8-9 : "I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with desire." Along with the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage, apart from attempting to extrapolate something from the text that is not present, here we are likely dealing again with sexual immorality that involves other individuals. As v. 5 exhorts husbands and wives not to deprive each other sexually (apart from mutually agreeing to abstain therefrom a short while), "otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control". Would it seem more likely Paul's concern here is with adultery (i.e, being sexually unfaithful with other persons) or is he worried that the deprived partner's "self-control" will crack and commit the heinous sin of masturbation?

In light of this, vv. 8-9 ought be taken along similar lines: Paul is concerned that those with strong (or formidable) sex drives ought prepare themselves for marriage so as to avoid sexual immorality (i.e., fornication, impurity, &c.) with other persons. It seems unlikely the concern is with a solitary act of releasing sexual tension. So our concern is probably not in view.

, , , or should we listen to inner convictions when they've served us well in the past?

Number two- Sneezing, coughing, vomiting (unless your bulimic) and blowing your nose would never cause someone to feel inwardly convicted to shame. [emphasis added]

Religious/Psychological Tyranny

Generally speaking, no, but I wouldn't absolutize that statement. People can, and often are, psychologically manipulated, spiritually and/or emotionally abused into feeling shame and guilt over all manner of things (1) outside their control, (2) neutral or amoral issues and even (3) the actions or responses of others (similar to [1]). False guilt and shame are extraordinarily prevalent. Abused persons commonly feel guilty for the mistreatment they endure, as if they "did something wrong" or "deserved it". Religion commonly is an oppressive force used by perverse men and women to manipulate and silence masses of people into either doing things they ought not to do apart from a guilty conscience, or conversely, shaming people for not being perfect or "as good as they ought to be" or heaping guilt on people for "grey matters" such as the one we've been discussing. As ridiculous as it may sound, people can be psychologically manipulated into having guilt feelings or pangs over even involuntary body functions such as sneezing.

None are intentionally spiritual actions (neither is eating popcorn) however one causes guilt! That rascally last one. I agree that to say it is non-spritual alone is not a good argument. It does do something to the spirit however that brings the shame forward sometimes. Should the person be left to ignore it? Why does he permit it to be such a battle when he eats popcorn with such ease and no guilt. I'd like to think our spirit sometimes likes to konk us on the spiritual head with a little wake up call as to what's good for us. (I think that's scriptural [different wording])

Led By...?

I'll be forward with you: I'm extremely skeptical of putting much weight into subjective feelings -- period (especially as it pertains to making serious life decisions). Think of the OT Proverbs. What is the way of wisdom? It is a way of applying the (unambiguous) revealed moral will and knowledge of God's word directly to our lives. Folly is all about following the way and impulses of the ever-shifting dictates of our feelings.

As we are physical creatures also, our thoughts, feelings and moods can and are drastically affected by our diet (healthy or unhealthy; too much, too little), nutrition (or lack thereof), vitamin supplementation, medication, exercise, sleep and rest, exposure to the sun, pollution, &c. In short, we have every right to call our own feelings into question about any number of things.

Another point of view can be that, sometimes, 'getting real' also means listening to that conviction that's bringing you shame.

Inward "Convictions"

People who have been sexually abused often deal with life long shame over abuse they personally were not responsible for or deserved. Perhaps they rightly should feel that continuing shame (and even guilt)? After, all it's present, isn't it? Could it not be their consciences are aflame "accusing them" of what worthless people they must be to have warranted years of mistreatment? Conversely, there are sociopaths who feel absolutely no shame or guilt who live lives of using, abusing and exploiting others. How much ought we be relying on inner whims and feelings over this and that issue or thing to arrive at the truth or moral "right" or wrong of a matter?

The same conviction and shame that tells you being bulimic and vomiting is bad for your body and you have to fight it so your body can stay healthy, there is such a thing as spiritual unhealthiness and I believe, for some people, masturbating makes them spiritually unhealthy, it de-nourishes their spirit.And for them, that's getting real with themselves and has nothing to do with being uptight but 'right' in their view and the way they see their standing with God. To them, even thinking it's ok because it's not explicitly in the bible could be the enemy they're recognizing.

Alcohol: A Case Example

Some people ought not be drinking alcohol. Some religious folk (including some individual Christians and entire denominations) have attempted to argue mightily from the Scriptures and experience the horrors of alcohol. But it's not only the abuse they are concerned with. They are convinced in their own hearts and minds that consumption of alcohol is a moral evil (if not an evil substance in and of itself), ought not be consumed and must be 100% abstained from. Even though the (alleged) scriptural evidence for absolute abstinence from alcoholic beverages is incredibly dubious (to say the least), still they claim the Scriptures are their sole authority. The arguments in favor of this teaching are purportedly locked and sealed based on "the Bible alone" (e.g., classical Methodism, various "holiness" groups, some Baptist organizations, Seventh-day Adventists).

What's the problem here? Are you saying there aren't some people who shouldn't be drinking alcohol? No. Some, for various personal reasons, would be quite wise to give up any thought of consuming alcoholic beverages. The problem? This abstinence cannot be universalized and made binding on the conscience of all Christians as the Scriptures do not warrant an absolute prohibition against "wine-drinking" or alcoholic drinks in general. This becomes instead an issue of wisdom, liberty and conscience. But first, we ought to have a well-informed conscience.

Properly being instructed by the Word (apart from denominational biases) and open to having our prejudices reexamined, all Judaizing must cease (whether it be by abuse of the Westminster Confession or Remonstrant Confession of faith, this pet theologian or that). Our consciences must be informed and re-informed constantly through the knowledge and wisdom of the Scriptures.

Romans 14 & Individual Christian Liberty

Finally, as I am now recognizing this post is becoming larger in size than I had originally intended, I should make a final comment. It really comes down to this: In lieu of explicit biblical teaching regarding the practice of masturbation and the generally unconvincing philosophical objections raised against it (allegedly based on biblical principles), what then are we to do? (1) Ought we take the scriptural silence as implicit condemnation of the practice (as I touched on in post #7 above)? Or (2) should we take the silence of Scripture to be an implicit endorsement of the practice (according to the general religious bias of most, I take it not many wish to go that route)? It seems to me that both approaches, (1) and (2). falter by presuming too much; neither are very helpful in offering a genuine solution to our dilemma.

Applying the principles of Romans 14 in relation to the issue we've been addressing (namely, masturbation) appears to be a more promising course to take (as opposed to outright prohibition [1] or endorsement by default [2]). As mentioned above (post #7), Paul's concern in Romans 14, in its proper context, is not to address sexual relations or practice. Rather, he is dealing specifically with Christian liberty regarding food (vv. 1-3), drink and days or times of worship (vv. 5-6a). A key verse in this chapter is v. 17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (ESV). Paul does not want the Jewish and Gentile believers arguing and bickering over clean and unclean foods or times of worship (vv. 13, 19-21). The issue is the upbuilding of the community and life of the church. Paul without a doubt allows for liberty of conscience in Christian community and condemns the brothers from judging each others on these things (v.10). He is convinced that nothing (i.e., no food) is unclean in itself, "but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (ESV). Paul tempers his own personal Christian liberty with love and denies he will ever "put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother" (v. 13b) and, in this way, does not rub his freedom in Christ into the face of the weaker brothers who personally do not share his views of the same.

Applying Romans 14

So how would Romans 14 have application for our concerns? Essentially we are making it a matter of conscience. Supposing, for example, you take masturbation to be wrong for yourself personally based on an "inward conviction" or feeling, I suppose then I have no right to tell you otherwise. On the other hand, at this point, based on a total lack of scriptural evidence in either specifically addressing or condemning the practice (taking the biblical canon to be the authoritative source for faith and practice), I am not convinced personally that we, as believers, are allowed any biblical warrant to preach or teach dogmatically, or make binding on men's consciences, a total abstinence of self-pleasure/release or masturbation. To me, this is a form of Protestant popery, where we take some other thing and set it alongside the Bible as co-equal or binding for faith and practice. Whether it be a list of really pious and/or intelligent theologians who condemned the practice or our own sanctified philosophizing against it, none of that can usurp the place of Scripture. As masturbation is a private practice not specifically addressed by the biblical authors, let each be convinced in his own mind, for or against it. But do not presume to make your opinion binding upon others.


* Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations in this post were taken from the HCSB.

[princesa]

I'll have to reread this carefully and then I'll share my thoughts. One note on your quote, "Some, for various personal reasons, would be quite wise to give up any thought of consuming alcoholic beverages. The problem? This abstinence cannot be universalized and made binding on the conscience of all Christians as the Scriptures do not warrant an absolute prohibition against "wine-drinking" or alcoholic drinks in general. This becomes instead an issue of wisdom, liberty and conscience. But first, we ought to have a well-informed conscience". Except Jesus drank wine and the bible also speaks of moderation and not giving in to gluttony. I don't see how they can be compared but it's early and I'm still drinking coffee. Is there something wrong with being convinced in your own mind that something is wrong when it doesn't stem from abuse but your own (perhaps faulty human reasoning) understanding of scripture by refraining from doing something that brings the person shame afterwards. If that same person were told over and over again "You're wrong, it's not shameful!" and then decided to break his marathon streak of abstaining from doing that and just do it do you think the shame will go away? (we're assuming he's not abused and an otherwise healthy individual). In some cases, yes, it will, in others, no it will not. The point is that if someone is comfortable with their belief while not making their opinion binding upon others and it's working for them whereas not abiding by their belief would make them feel less close to God because someone said 'hey, it really is ok", is that considered a problem?

also this, based on a total lack of scriptural evidence in either specifically addressing or condemning the practice (taking the biblical canon to be the authoritative source for faith and practice), I am not convinced personally that we, as believers, are allowed any biblical warrant to preach or teach dogmatically, or make binding on men's consciences, a total abstinence of self-pleasure/release or masturbation..........I think this is personal between a person and God and I never agreed it should be preached or taught. At least I don't think I did. There is a total lack of scriptural evidence for a great many things and decisions we make in those grey areas, for myself, are made by following my conscience. I agree we have every right to call our own feelings into question about any number of things and once we do there is the choice to accept the feeling as valid after careful consideration in the individual. I don't know how accurate this is but someone once mentioned there is no explicit statement in scripture that speaks of 2 women being together, only men so why shouldn't it be permissible?
Anyway, the solution is to make decisions that will help you live a spiritually healthy life. For some, that means abstaining from certain actions. God knows we will get things wrong much of the time, but frankly (I hate how corny I'm sounding myself here), if we don't make choices that we feel comfortable with in life that's not harming either ourselves or anyone outside of ourselves, I don't see how that is a bad or wrong thing, or even a thing that needs to be re-evaluated.

[RBerman]

Many questions of modern life are not explicitly answered in the Bible. But the Bible does provide general principles that can guide the mature Christian to extrapolate answers. Nor does God intend for us to sort everything out for ourselves and by ourselves; he gives us the church. I encourage you to bring these sorts of questions to reliable spiritual counselors, though I'm aware that the 'reliable' part has been tough for you to find historically.

Our goal is not simply "Don't harm anybody" but rather "Honor God by following his commandments in love." It's not necessary that we understand the reasons for those commandments; it may even be healthy to follow as a simple act of obedience, in the absence of understanding. The general doesn't explain everything to the private.

[princesa]

Many questions of modern life are not explicitly answered in the Bible. But the Bible does provide general principles that can guide the mature Christian to extrapolate answers. Nor does God intend for us to sort everything out for ourselves and by ourselves; he gives us the church.

Yes.

I encourage you to bring these sorts of questions to reliable spiritual counselors

The topic was introduced here by the Remonstrant, just an fyi. I don't really have questions on it.

Our goal is not simply "Don't harm anybody" but rather "Honor God by following his commandments in love." It's not necessary that we understand the reasons for those commandments; it may even be healthy to follow as a simple act of obedience, in the absence of understanding. The general doesn't explain everything to the private.

amen

[The Remonstrant]

Princesa, I can see now how my last statement can be taken. Unfortunately, it didn't come out as I'd intended. I'll have to explain that one... First, though, I thank you for your engagement on this one, even if we obviously are not quite convinced of each other's views. Please allow me a little time to properly respond. Until then, take care.

[The Remonstrant]

Booze Drinking

I'll have to reread this carefully and then I'll share my thoughts. One note on your quote, "Some, for various personal reasons, would be quite wise to give up any thought of consuming alcoholic beverages. The problem? This abstinence cannot be universalized and made binding on the conscience of all Christians as the Scriptures do not warrant an absolute prohibition against "wine-drinking" or alcoholic drinks in general. This becomes instead an issue of wisdom, liberty and conscience. But first, we ought to have a well-informed conscience". Except Jesus drank wine and the bible also speaks of moderation and not giving in to gluttony. I don't see how they can be compared but it's early and I'm still drinking coffee.

Unbelievable as it may appear, as I indicated in my message above (#9), there have been, and are, sects of Christianity who advocate total abstinence of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, they claim to ground this conviction or belief of theirs on the Bible alone. Take Seventh-day Adventist Samuele Bacciocchi's Wine in the Bible, for example. The author attempts to argue -- from the Bible -- that Christians are not to consume fermented wine or any alcoholic drink. 100% abstinence. Bacciocchi (now deceased) and other Protestant prohibitionists are more than familiar with the passages which speak of Christ drinking wine and the like. (At this point I will forgo their line of argumentation and interpretation of key biblical texts. If you are interested, I would encourage you to further research this. It is not only fringe, whack-job groups who argue and strenuously oppose alcohol consumption within the larger Christian community.)

Is there something wrong with being convinced in your own mind that something is wrong when it doesn't stem from abuse but your own (perhaps faulty human reasoning) understanding of scripture by refraining from doing something that brings the person shame afterwards[?]

No. If it's "not of faith" (as in Romans 14), it would be wise to avoid harming your conscience and thus sinning against what you perceive to be right or wrong (over a disputable, unclear or "grey" moral matter). Again, however, I would recommend always informing and re-informing the conscience through the medium of the Scriptures.

If that same person were told over and over again "You're wrong, it's not shameful!" and then decided to break his marathon streak of abstaining from doing that and just do it do you think the shame will go away? (we're assuming he's not abused and an otherwise healthy individual). In some cases, yes, it will, in others, no it will not. The point is that if someone is comfortable with their belief while not making their opinion binding upon others and it's working for them whereas not abiding by their belief would make them feel less close to God because someone said 'hey, it really is ok", is that considered a problem?

That's just it: As long as we refrain from making our own personal view of a disputable (or unclear) moral issue an obligatory "yea" or "nay" we are on safe ground.

also this, based on a total lack of scriptural evidence in either specifically addressing or condemning the practice (taking the biblical canon to be the authoritative source for faith and practice), I am not convinced personally that we, as believers, are allowed any biblical warrant to preach or teach dogmatically, or make binding on men's consciences, a total abstinence of self-pleasure/release or masturbation..........I think this is personal between a person and God and I never agreed it should be preached or taught. At least I don't think I did.

In post #9, under "Applying Romans 14", I closed with ". . . As masturbation is a private practice not specifically addressed by the biblical authors, let each be convinced in his own mind, for or against it. But do not presume to make your opinion binding upon others" (emphasis added). I can see easily how that last statement can be taken in a way I did not originally intend it to be taken. Better, I meant to say something like this: "But we cannot presume to make our opinions binding on others." It was not meant to be a slam personally directed against you. The "you" was not... you, but a general... "you" (this is why inclusive language helps so much). My apologies for the misunderstanding.

There is a total lack of scriptural evidence for a great many things and decisions we make in those grey areas, for myself, are made by following my conscience. I agree we have every right to call our own feelings into question about any number of things and once we do there is the choice to accept the feeling as valid after careful consideration in the individual.

Also, I should add, RB's comments regarding the potential assistance of the community of believers (i.e., the church) pertaining to such matters is something to take into consideration here.

...Not in the Bible?

I don't know how accurate this is but someone once mentioned there is no explicit statement in scripture that speaks of 2 women being together, only men so why shouldn't it be permissible?

This is false. Romans 1:26 speaks to this issue. Perhaps those with an agenda striving mightily in favor of homosexual practices (particularly female homosexual practices) could find a way to wrangle this text in their favor with a contrary view. However, in light of v. 27 of the same chapter, such an interpretation would be ludicrous.

Comfort (?)

Anyway, the solution is to make decisions that will help you live a spiritually healthy life. For some, that means abstaining from certain actions. God knows we will get things wrong much of the time, but frankly (I hate how corny I'm sounding myself here), if we don't make choices that we feel comfortable with in life that's not harming either ourselves or anyone outside of ourselves, I don't see how that is a bad or wrong thing, or even a thing that needs to be re-evaluated.

"if we don't make choices that we feel comfortable with in life that's not harming either ourselves or anyone outside of ourselves, I don't see how that is a bad or wrong thing, or even a thing that needs to be re-evaluated" (emphasis added). In light of the content we have been addressing up till now, I suppose I could acknowledge this statement to some level. However, as a general statement (which I'm not entirely sure you intended it to be), I would call such a statement immediately into question. As a general statement, it would seem patently false. People oftentimes do not advance in life or for the kingdom of God for the simple reason that they are far too comfortable where they are, however miserable they might be (patterns, rituals, circle of friends, occupation, the town/neighborhood they live in, &c.). Hey, I speak from personal experience! So there's no condemnation coming from me. But then again, perhaps your statement was not intended to be generalized and I entirely misconstrued it...

[princesa]

Booze Drinking



Unbelievable as it may appear, as I indicated in my message above (#9), there have been, and are, sects of Christianity who advocate total abstinence of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, they claim to ground this conviction or belief of theirs on the Bible alone. Take Seventh-day Adventist Samuele Bacciocchi's Wine in the Bible, for example. The author attempts to argue -- from the Bible -- that Christians are not to consume fermented wine or any alcoholic drink. 100% abstinence. Bacciocchi (now deceased) and other Protestant prohibitionists are more than familiar with the passages which speak of Christ drinking wine and the like. (At this point I will forgo their line of argumentation and interpretation of key biblical texts. If you are interested, I would encourage you to further research this. It is not only fringe, whack-job groups who argue and strenuously oppose alcohol consumption within the larger Christian community.)

It would be interesting to see how they could argue 100% abstinence of alcohol especially using scripture, if I have time I'll look into it, thanks for the sources.

No. If it's "not of faith" (as in Romans 14), it would be wise to avoid harming your conscience and thus sinning against what you perceive to be right or wrong (over a disputable, unclear or "grey" moral matter). Again, however, I would recommend always informing and re-informing the conscience through the medium of the Scriptures.

I wonder though, if it's really necessary to continually try to reinform your conscience of abstaining from the self gratification in our earlier example. To do so in order to resist temptation would make sense as you recall scripture to strenghten your resolve to do 'right' but to do so in order to say to oneself "is it really wrong" almost sounds like making excuses for a conscience that's already confirmed on the matter.

In post #9, under "Applying Romans 14", I closed with ". . . As masturbation is a private practice not specifically addressed by the biblical authors, let each be convinced in his own mind, for or against it. But do not presume to make your opinion binding upon others" (emphasis added). I can see easily how that last statement can be taken in a way I did not originally intend it to be taken. Better, I meant to say something like this: "But we cannot presume to make our opinions binding on others." It was not meant to be a slam personally directed against you. The "you" was not... you, but a general... "you" (this is why inclusive language helps so much). My apologies for the misunderstanding.

I sort of knew you meant it generally but just in case I gave any impression otherwise I answered it as directed towards what you may have thought was my stance. But thank you for the clarification.

This is false. Romans 1:26 speaks to this issue. Perhaps those with an agenda striving mightily in favor of homosexual practices (particularly female homosexual practices) could find a way to wrangle this text in their favor with a contrary view. However, in light of v. 27 of the same chapter, such an interpretation would be ludicrous.

Well that was just the perfect verse, thank you.

"if we don't make choices that we feel comfortable with in life that's not harming either ourselves or anyone outside of ourselves, I don't see how that is a bad or wrong thing, or even a thing that needs to be re-evaluated" (emphasis added). In light of the content we have been addressing up till now, I suppose I could acknowledge this statement to some level. However, as a general statement (which I'm not entirely sure you intended it to be), I would call such a statement immediately into question. As a general statement, it would seem patently false. People oftentimes do not advance in life or for the kingdom of God for the simple reason that they are far too comfortable where they are, however miserable they might be (patterns, rituals, circle of friends, occupation, the town/neighborhood they live in, &c.).

That's a great point, I was more being specific to the topic at hand but that philosophy doesn't work well with other matters that might hinder spiritual growth I agree. For example, I am very comfortable not being forgiving to someone who has hurt me many years ago even though that person has changed and although they haven't apologized (I know there is some debate as to whether forgiveness should come only after an apology as I have a thread on it) BUT I lie, because I'm not exactly comfortable,sometimes I feel like taking a kind action to this person and sometimes I DO but then I regress and become the grudge holder again. Perhaps I am not advancing for the kingdom of God because of this. Not sure. Anyway, it's been a pleasure interacting with you, thank you for your posts.