True Love Doesn’t Wait. Really!

Call to Arms

We believe that the Church is in a crisis.

There are thousands of godly young men and women who want to get married, who are ready to get married, and who, in fact, should already be married. Indeed, they should have been married long ago. But despite many years spent “waiting”, they remain unmarried. Their families, their friends, and their church have all prepared them for marriage. They have been prepared for early marriage, even, for early, fruitful marriage … and they are not married.

There is no persecution, no law, no physical infirmities preventing them from being married. But they are not married. And, not being married, they are failing to serve Christ and the Church in all of the purposes for marriage: to avoid fornication, to raise up a Godly seed, to be a living metaphor of the faith itself.

This is not a ‘panic’, it is a crisis. We have from among the very best and brightest of our Christian young people, from the finest families, the best taught men and women who are already well past the flower of their age, and they are not married. That is beyond a crisis, it is a catastrophe.

In response to part of this crisis—the part where these unmarried young people were or are engaging in rampant fornication—there is a movement amongst the evangelical, conservative churches called ‘True Love Waits.’ You are probably familiar with it, maybe even have participated in it: You have some speaker come; you sign a card; and you wear a ring. You promise to ‘wait’ for marriage before you engage in sexual intercourse.

On it’s face, the overt message of the ‘True Love Waits’ movement is that the Godly young man or woman does not have sexual relations outside of marriage. And that is true enough. Good message.

But that is not, unfortunately, the title of the movement. I suppose that, among other things the title: ‘The Godly Young Man or Woman Does Not Have Sexual Relations Outside of Marriage’ was just not catchy enough. But as a result, we have a problem with a title. And, quite frankly, not just with the title, but with the messages that, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, accompany the title. What do we hear, what does our modern youth hear, when someone says, ‘True Love Waits’?

by-a-pool-1.jpg!BlogWell, first of all they hear the words ‘true love’. Now, quite frankly, Christians all believe in ‘true love’. But they don’t believe, or shouldn’t, in the kind of ‘true love’ that this phrase implies. The ‘true love’ of the phrase, and, quite frankly, of much of the ‘true love waits’ literature, has much more in common with the play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ than anything we find in Scripture. The ‘true love’ of Scripture is a love that has God as its focus, no matter what its object. The true love of Scripture is an obedient love, which does hard things in difficult circumstances. The true love of Scripture loves the otherwise unlovable, because having been unlovable it was loved. The true love of Scripture is a relationship and an action, not a feeling.

The ‘true love’ of the popular movement, on the other hand, is a feeling. It has a human as its focus, and a whelm of emotions as its driving force. Biblically speaking it is not love but lust. It might, in the end, be a good lust[1]; we are not Catholics to deny such a thing. But it is not love, and definitely not ‘true love’.

Next we have the word ‘waits’. The theory of the word is ‘does not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage’. This we all agree with. This Scripture teaches.[2]

But the word ‘waits’ in the title implies something else. It implies a certain, if even possibly brief, ‘not now’…. that there is to be an eventual end to the waiting. That, while they are waiting now, they will soon be able to stop waiting and rejoice with their husband or wife.

But what they give by implication they take away by method. While it may sound very spiritual, the idea of getting a wife or husband by a mere avoiding of fornication is neither practical nor Scriptural. In order for true love to have successfully ‘waited’, true love needs to stop waiting at some point. Our young people are not going to be married by a mere ‘waiting’. No one has ever been married by such a method, and no one ever could be.

And Scripture, far from praising waiting in this matter, condemns it. Scripture does not prescribe ‘waiting’ as an antidote to fornication, it prescribes marriage.[3]

We have designed this site to help these young people, their families, and their church. This site is designed to discuss what the Scriptures teach regarding the path to marriage, how we have failed to follow it, and what we must now do about it. Because we firmly believe that ‘True Love Doesn’t Wait’Rather, ‘True Love’ marries.

 

—–
Note: The issues we raise on this website we also cover in two published books, both of which are available both in electronic (free) and print versions:

what are you doingWhat are you Doing? A conversation about dating and courtship

e-version

print

 

covenantThe Covenant of Betrothal: Affirming the sufficiency of Scripture over the path to marriage

e-version

print

 

Footnotes:

[1] There is an unfortunate disconnect between the Greek and the English concerning the word ‘lust’. The Greek word indicates a ‘strong desire’, and is even used by Christ for his ‘strong desire’ to eat the passover with his disciples (Luke 22:15). So let me be very clear: I am saying that it is very appropriate to have strong emotions toward your husband and wife; emotions that include sexual desire. But this is not the Biblical ‘love’ that we are called to in I Corinthians 13, it is not the ‘true love’ of God  or, rather, is but a pale, if important, shadow of that love.
Sexual desire of a man for a woman is a good thing, but it is not the good thing.

[2] Acts 15:20, 29, Acts 21:5, Romans 1:29, I Corinthians 5:1, I Corinthians 6:18, I Corinthians 7:2-5, I Corinthians 7:8-9, Proverbs 5:15-23

[3] I Corinthians 7:2-5, I Corinthians 7:8-9, Proverbs 5:15-23

 

 

58 comments

  1. J. A. says:

    I am just wondering, if your only purpose for marriage is to have lots of sex and to raise “godly” children, what about the couple that does not do anything to prevent it and cannot have children? Is their marriage not blessed?

    • Von says:

      Well, J.A., you can stop wondering! While having ‘lot’s of sex’ and raising Godly children are important purposes in marriage (See Proverbs 5, I Cor 7, The Song of Solomon, Psalm 127, and 128), they are far from the only purposes in marriage. These others include the dominion mandate (Genesis 1,2), representing Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5) among others.

      And even in the limited confines of your question, the couple that cannot have children can still have lot’s of sex, no :)

  2. “The true love of Scripture is a relationship and an action, not a feeling.”

    Why would I pursue a relationship if I don’t love someone? It is both the feeling and the relationship.

    Courtship is the wisest and most comfortable way if it is done properly. The man goes to the girl’s father and so on.

    • Von says:

      I think you are merely begging the question. A man might, and indeed many men have, enter into the covenant of marriage for all the reasons that Scripture lists as being benefits of marriage; including sexual pleasure, a helpmeet, Godly offspring, etc. These things are not contingent on Romeo and Juliet type feelings arising before the covenant is instituted.

      • I agree that Romeo’s and Juliet’s love was totally inappropriate. I very strongly dislike that story!

        Sorry; I didn’t word that in the best way. I’m not saying it’s necessary for those feelings to be there before the covenant. But Biblical love is both an action and a feeling.

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      If the feeling is not present is it less of a marriage from God’s perspective?

      If you do not feel like a Christian does that mean you are not one?

      If you feel like it one day, and the next day you do not does your situation change?

  3. Rob says:

    Vaughn,

    I’ve followed this site for quite a long time in order to make sure I have the proper impression before commenting. Reading through several dozen of your posts has given me a very good grasp of what you believe. Suffice to say, we disagree on much…

    First, it is troubling to me that you put words in God’s mouth by making marriage a command; even going so far as saying singleness is a sin (and it doesn’t matter on whose behalf you are claiming that). The lack of such a command alone should be sufficient to drive true believers from this site and teachings. But because I fear that many Christians will unfortunately overlook this fact, I will delve into a point or two.

    I have gathered that your most significant reason for marriage is to “avoid fornication”. This is my impression I have gotten from your writings and what I feel has been most emphasized. If there are other points you consider equally important, we will work through those as well. I would like to pose a question regarding the legitimacy of this reasoning. I’m not saying that marriage does not help in this area. It does. But I am against using it as an excuse to claim that God commands people to marry.

    Sadly in this era we live in, it is common to find boys of a younger and younger age who start watching porn. If you believe, as I do, that porn is adultery (it’s lust, lusting in your heart = adultery), and since adultery is a synonym for fornication, you have a very creepy conundrum. If marriage is the “cure” for “fornication”, are you going to say that a 13 year old boy should get married? Or 14, 15, etc… I’m asking for an honest answer to this. How would you handle a 15 year old boy’s addiction to porn?

    Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could round up a list of verses that command marriage. It would be easier to reference here than sorting through posts.

    Best,

    Rob

    • Von says:

      Rob,

      When you disagree with me or Jeff, it would be most helpful if you would quote us. For example when you say we ‘make marriage a command’ you are either making something up or misunderstanding. We do not make marriage ‘a command’. We try to be careful (we may not always succeed) to point out exactly where we believe marriage is commanded, and where it is merely an obedience to the expression of God’s will in the Scripture.
      So, for point one, we point to I Corinthians Seven in regard to how marriage is commanded for those who have a problem with fornication. For those who aren’t struggling with fornication (or who don’t look likely to, ie those who have the gift of celibacy) they are still allowed to marriage and the will of God, as expressed in several places of Scripture, is very much toward marriage.
      Does God express His will merely in ‘commands’? Scripture does not speak in that manner.
      I will work on a post in further answer to your questions, however. But it will take a while.

    • Jeff says:

      By the way, Rob, I do want to say that we appreciate you taking the time to read our material and to think about these matters from a Biblical perspective. Sometimes we get so quick on answering objections that we forget to thank those who take the time and interest to read and discuss. So…thanks!

  4. Rob says:

    Vaughn,

    Here is where you make the claim that marriage is a command:

    Von: “For the overwhelming majority of unmarried people *someone* is in sin”. That’s the quote I’m looking to see reversed.
    I stand by that statement. It accords well with what the church has historically taught, and what the Scriptures show. Feel free to disagree.
    I could add all of the usual caveats “I believe” and “As I read Scripture” etc.

    This was in a comment on Eight Steps II. In order to claim something is sin, you must have a law or decree that can be broken. God’s will is different for everyone, so we cannot say “God’s will is for everyone to marry”. Additionally, we don’t read that in the bible either.

    Best,

    Rob

    • Von says:

      Yes, I did make that statement. I didn’t follow it up with your logic, however. So to point out the part where I would disagree (with your logic, not my statement) this is not true:

      In order to claim something is sin, you must have a law or decree that can be broken.

      Feel free to attempt to justify this claim from Scripture while we work on our post in response to your original statement (taking this one in mind).

      In addition you fail to quote me again when you say:

      “God’s will is for everyone to marry”

      Ironic that you would make such a misquote when you literally quote me, correctly, earlier in the same comment. Again, feel free to quote me, but I’m relatively sure I didn’t say that.

  5. Rob says:

    You are right in not agreeing with “God’s will is for all to marry”. I was making an assertion to ensure we are on the same page. I was heading that off, not quoting you. If you do believe this, please verify it and give scriptural backup.

  6. Rob says:

    Also, in order to claim something is sin, you must have some sort of command, law, or similar statement from God. Else it is just an opinion turned false axiom. It’s deeply egregious to God when a person he created tells another person they’re sinning when God himself never called their actions (or lack thereof) a sin.

    • Jeff says:

      Rob, this may well all be true, but God *does* call undue delay of marriage sin in His Word (1 Corinthians 7:7-9; Genesis 38:26). And God *has* commanded marriage for the great majority of people. (See Matthew 19:10-12; 1 Corinthians 7:2,9.)

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      “Also, in order to claim something is sin, you must have some sort of command, law, or similar statement from God.”

      How about the greatest commandment? Matthew 22:38 “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”

      Anything less than this is sin. Anything.

      It is like that story about the person who asked “What is it that I have to give up to follow Jesus?” and I wise person answered “What will you not give up for him? That is what you have to give up.”

      Literally anything that we can focus on other than God can be a sin.

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      Once one understand this, then it is a simple matter to demonstrate that marriage is looked upon with favor by God. That is sufficient for those who love God. As Christians we are not looking for loopholes on how we can get out of doing what God wants us to do so we can do our own will. We want to please him.

  7. Jon says:

    Jeff,
    You said “God *does* call undue delay of marriage sin in His Word” The problem is in defining what exactly “undue delay” is. Obviously, this is going to vary wildly between believers as people mature at varying rates. So, unless you can provide a quantitative amount of delay that is unbiblical, with explicit Scriptural support; then you cannot say that someone is in sin for not marrying.

    • Jeff says:

      Jon, I did say that. A number of much wiser men throughout Church history have also said it.

      I agree with you, which is why we do not try to define it in that way. (Although, I’m not sure about it varying “wildly”.) We are not looking to point out this sin to individual people. That is not our place (generally speaking). But, it is our place as believers to point out this common sin in families in the Church today. Individuals can determine for themselves how or if it applies. There is no need to “provide a quantitative amount of delay that is unbiblical”. The Bible describes this qualitatively in numerous places, and I think most people today are smart enough (if they will admit it to themselves) to put a number to it.

      Marriage has been “unduly delayed” if fornication is committed/has become an issue (this is most clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 7.)
      Marriage has been unduly delayed if one (especially without the rare gift of celibacy) has passed the “flower of their youth” (which, again, we are smart enough to put an age range to this).
      Marriage has been unduly delayed if a lawful marriage is prevented in some way.
      Marriage has also been unduly delayed if one is in need of/desirous of marriage, and every reasonable effort *has not been* put into effect, especially by those in authority over them.

      All four of these are plainly demonstrable from Scripture. I would also add that marriage is unduly delayed when we have quasi-covenant (not firm) “sexual” relationships. This one I’m not sure would be as straightforward to demonstrate (though I do believe the principles are there).

      Also, I would be careful about that “explicit Scriptural support” bit. Where is that explicitly found in Scripture?

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      “The problem is in defining what exactly “undue delay” is”

      No, the problem is why we would want to delay if undue delay is a problem. Are there any verses that warn against undue haste?

  8. Von says:

    A note as this comment thread continues:

    It seems there are a variety of statements slipping in ‘under the radar’ of both sides. They are the statements stating ‘You can’t call something a sin unless X'; and where ‘X’ is never supported from Scripture.

    Reminding everyone that ‘X’ is therefore not proven, and discussion really should focus on proving X before moving on to its application. Is it true that ‘We can’t call something a sin unless it goes directly against a command of God’? It would seem that, to avoid self contradictorion, that ‘We can’t’ needs to be shown in a command of God for this not to be self contradictory. (Assuming that the poster means ‘It is a sin to call something a sin unless…”

  9. Von says:

    Rob wrote:

    If you believe, as I do, that porn is adultery (it’s lust, lusting in your heart = adultery), and since adultery is a synonym for fornication,

    Another overall point, these definitions need clearly up:

    Fornication (Greek: Porninea) is the overall term for all sexual sin. This would then include Sodomy, adultery, incest, beastialty, and what we, in the US, typically call ‘fornication’ (ie sexual contact between two unmarried people).

    The term ‘adultery’ is typically used in a more limited fashion, and includes only sexual contact with someone else’s wife. So a young man watching porn may be committing adultery if the woman involved is married, or ‘simple’ fornication. Not to excuse it at all, but to clarify the definitions.

    The use of the Hebrew term ‘adultery’ in the ten commandments, however, is usually taken, like the Greek word ‘porninea’ to include all sexual sins; the definition and punishment of which is handled in the ‘case laws’.

  10. Rob says:

    Vaughn,

    To your second to latest comment. If you are telling us (calling it [1] ) that we have to prove where God says “if it’s not in my book, don’t claim it is” there’s a huge problem. You seem to be insinuating that we can’t say “you can’t call it sin if the Bible doesn’t call it sin” because of [1]. This would also mean that we would be wrong in saying “you can’t call it command if God doesn’t call it a command”. Now you’ve just approved every manner of unbiblical “doctrine” because you can call whatever you want a command. If I’m wrong in assuming you’re saying this (and I dearly hope that I am), good. If I’m right, please own up to it.

    To your latest post, if you are claiming that fornication = sexual, physical sin alone, then no single Christian I know would have a problem with “fornication”. You think way too lowly of people. I have self control. Other people have self control. Guys don’t go around humping everyone they see as soon as an urge strikes. So if this is your definition, the “command” to get married to avoid fornication is the weakest argument you could make, as it would only be effective if someone was unable to avoid sleeping around. Which is a ridiculous assumption. And ironically what the “true love waits” community specializes in.

    • Von says:

      To your latest post, if you are claiming that fornication = sexual, physical sin alone,

      Wow. Where on earth do you get me as saying that? I said, and I say, that ‘fornication’ (Greek porninea) is *all manner* of sexual sins. They are all included within this Greek general term. All of them.

    • Von says:

      If I’m wrong in assuming you’re saying this (and I dearly hope that I am), good. If I’m right, please own up to it.

      Quite frankly, I have no idea what you just said. I especially don’t know what you mean by [1].

    • Von says:

      But I will try to clarify my meaning, if that helps. What I am saying is, of someone comes along and says, “You can’t call something a sin unless a duck flies overhead” then we really do need to do a Scriptural search on the relationship between ducks and sins.

      So in the posts above I saw you say saying, “You can’t call something a sin unless it goes against one of God’s commands.” I challenge you to support that from Scripture. Sin has typically been defined as doing something against the will of God which is shown, in Scripture, in several different ways, including an individual’s conscience.

  11. Rob says:

    Vaughn,

    My mistake. I mistook your intentional distinction between “fornication” and adultery to mean that you thought fornication was more specific. This actually reminded me to ask you another question: why should we make a distinction between cheating on a spouse, and lusting after someone as a single individual? Is God up in heaven saying, “I see his thoughts going through his head now, but he’s single so he gets a pass”?

    Also, I apologize for making my argument too complex for you. I’ll try to make it simpler so you can understand it. If you claim it is invalid for us to say “you can’t call X sin because it isn’t explicitly stated in the bible (it doesn’t violate any command written in the Bible)”, then you would also have to say that the following argument is invalid: “you can’t call X a command because it isn’t written in the Bible”. These two are the same. So then if you understand what I’m saying this far, you’ll see that you’ve opened up the door to a lot of false doctrines. I could say “you can’t call wearing skirts a command because it isn’t in the Bible”, and you could come back by saying “the bible doesn’t say we can’t call something a command just because it isn’t specifically mentioned”. You are giving up the authority of the Bible, to get away with calling marriage a command, so that you can call singleness a sin.

    “Sin has typically been defined as doing something against the will of God which is shown, in Scripture, in several different ways, including an individual’s conscience.” If God’s will is for all to be married, I would expect him to either say “my will for all to marry”, or “all must marry”. We don’t see that. I have the same Bible as you do, and not once have I ever come across verses like that. I DO like you part on the conscience. It’s true, breaking our conscience can be the same as breaking God’s will. And if that’s leading you to marriage, you should definitely get married. But do not call something God’s will or God’s command when God himself doesn’t.

    • Von says:

      why should we make a distinction between cheating on a spouse, and lusting after someone as a single individual?

      Because God does.

    • Von says:

      If you claim it is invalid for us to say “you can’t call X sin because it isn’t explicitly stated in the bible (it doesn’t violate any command written in the Bible)”

      Where do I say that? Again the whole copy paste thing really comes in helpful. What I said was this:

      So in the posts above I saw you say saying, “You can’t call something a sin unless it goes against one of God’s commands.” I challenge you to support that from Scripture. Sin has typically been defined as doing something against the will of God which is shown, in Scripture, in several different ways, including an individual’s conscience.

      IOW I was pointing out the contradiction of your own position. You wish to say that one cannot claim something is a sin unless it violates a specific command in Scripture. In other words you are saying, “It is a sin to say something is a sin unless it goes against a Scriptural command”. But by that logic you now need to justify that statement, with a Scriptural command, since you claim something is a sin.

      We, on the other hand, make no such claim. We claim that God communicates His will not only in Scriptural commands, but in several other ways in Scripture. And he communicates to us, personally, through our conscience. (Altho this needs to be checked against Scripture)

    • Von says:

      I would expect him to either say “my will for all to marry”, or “all must marry”. We don’t see that.

      Interesting expectation. You are, once again, falsely quoting our beliefs, but we leave that alone for a minute and tell you now I would expect God to communicate His will. For which I have some basis, because it is how it is shown, an has been believed to be shown, in Scripture. I would expect his will to be shown through all of Scripture: commands, yes, and teaching, yes, and examples, and blessings, and cursings… and a whole variety of ways.

      So the fact that you don’t see what you are looking for is a hint that you are looking for the wrong thing. Oh, and ignoring it when you do see it, as we will show in our article, which I have about a quarter or so done.

    • Von says:

      Is God up in heaven saying, “I see his thoughts going through his head now, but [she’s unmarried] so he gets a pass”?

      No. But the punishments are different.

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      “If God’s will is for all to be married, I would expect him to either say “my will for all to marry”, or “all must marry”. ”

      Does God view marriage with favor? Do you want to please him? Is that not sufficient reason? Is not wanting to please God a sin?

  12. Rob says:

    Here’s the thing. If you’re right about what we’re saying, and I’m wrong for saying it, then you have the freedom to say whatever you want and call it “the will of God” or “God’s command”. This would make you a heretic. If I’m right, then your doctrine of marriage-is-command, or whatever you would like to call it, is false. However, I am basing my statements only on that which comes out of the Bible. I’m not saying anything else. Neither will I claim God says something when he doesn’t, nor will I say he hasn’t said something he has. Surprise, the Bible actually does have things to say about adding to and taking from God’s commands. This is how I say you are in sin for adding the “command to marry”. God commands us not to add/subtract from the law. A violation of that command would be sinful.

    Deut. 4:2, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”

    Prov. 30:5-6, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.”

    Deut. 12:32, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it”

    Think carefully before you call something a command that the Lord himself has not.

    • Von says:

      God commands us not to add/subtract from the law. A violation of that command would be sinful.

      This is very true. And that is why, your frequent misquotes of us notwithstanding, we don’t say that it is a command that ‘everyone marry'; and why we spend a considerable amount of time footnoting what we do say. From Scripture.

    • Von says:

      Here’s the thing. If you’re right about what we’re saying, and I’m wrong for saying it, then you have the freedom to say whatever you want and call it “the will of God” or “God’s command”. This would make you a heretic.

      By the way, this sentence makes no sense. It seems to say that if I am right, I am a heretic. An odd definition of heretic, I must say.

      • Rob says:

        I am honestly running out of ways to simplify this for you. I’m sorry. If you’re right about me presenting an invalid argument when I say “you can’t call something a command that isn’t in the Bible”, then you allow the following statement: “you CAN call something a command that isn’t in the Bible”. This is obviously adding to God’s word and will be appropriately judged on the final day. Also, you CAN have a logically valid statement (be “right”) and still be wrong in terms of what the Bible actually says.

        We’re finally getting to where I want to be with this discussion. We’ve established, and you agree, that adding (subtracting) to (from) God’s word is sinful. We’ve established that your “command” to marry is not a general command for everyone, but only a particular set of people; hopefully we will see what that is in your forthcoming post.

        • Von says:

          If you’re right about me presenting an invalid argument when I say “you can’t call something a command that isn’t in the Bible”

          Here again is where copy/paste comes in helpful. Try copy/pasting where I said this.

          • Rob says:

            “A note as this comment thread continues:
            It seems there are a variety of statements slipping in ‘under the radar’ of both sides. They are the statements stating ‘You can’t call something a sin unless X'; and where ‘X’ is never supported from Scripture.
            Reminding everyone that ‘X’ is therefore not proven, and discussion really should focus on proving X before moving on to its application. Is it true that ‘We can’t call something a sin unless it goes directly against a command of God’? It would seem that, to avoid self contradictorion, that ‘We can’t’ needs to be shown in a command of God for this not to be self contradictory. (Assuming that the poster means ‘It is a sin to call something a sin unless…” ”

            That is your quote. Here is another:

            “IOW I was pointing out the contradiction of your own position. You wish to say that one cannot claim something is a sin unless it violates a specific command in Scripture. In other words you are saying, “It is a sin to say something is a sin unless it goes against a Scriptural command”. But by that logic you now need to justify that statement, with a Scriptural command, since you claim something is a sin.”

            If you honestly don’t remember what you’ve said in the past, I get it. I’ll keep quoting you verbatim. But it’s difficult to copy and past multiple large sections on my phone. I’m finding it frustrating having to spell out every single one of my posts and your comments because you don’t understand them or claim you haven’t said things. I haven’t put words in your mouth at all. When I said you called my argument invalid, I was referring to your comments that called upon a proof by contradiction, of sorts. I left it to you to make the connection.

            • Von says:

              If you honestly don’t remember what you’ve said in the past, I get it. I’ll keep quoting you verbatim.

              Oh, I remember. But it seems you don’t, since you keep saying I said things I never said. I have demonstrated, and will do so again, the self-contradictory nature of your position. But you can’t misquote me as saying I said something I never said. So just quote me verbatim.

            • Jeff says:

              Rob, it seems that it needs to point out that you have missed the very fact that what you copied / pasted is not what you put in quotes as something Von supposedly said.

              Let me help you out:

              Rob’s paraphrase: “you can’t call something a command that isn’t in the Bible”
              What Von actually said: “You can’t call something a sin unless X”

              Please, I hope you see the difference here and why Von has been harping on using actual quotes of what he and others said.

        • Von says:

          We’re finally getting to where I want to be with this discussion. We’ve established, and you agree, that adding (subtracting) to (from) God’s word is sinful. We’ve established that your “command” to marry is not a general command for everyone, but only a particular set of people; hopefully we will see what that is in your forthcoming post.

          We have arrived at nowhere we weren’t from the beginning of the thread. Ignoring your misquote of me (again) I have said, since the beginning that a) not all men are called to marriage (only the ‘overwhelming majority’, as you literally quoted me as saying) and b) We cannot add to or subtract from God’s Word: a position that is hopefully present in our hermeneutic.

          (Note: I did NOT say that marriage was not a general command. Our position, and that of Christ, Paul, and the reformers, is that it is indeed generally ‘commanded’ (ie it is God’s revealed will) for all mankind, *but* that there are certain rare exceptions.

    • Chris Nystrom says:

      “Think carefully before you call something a command that the Lord himself has not.”

      A suggestion from God is equivalent to a command from God if you are following the Greatest Commandment of God.

  13. Rob says:

    And let’s clear something up. State your beliefs. Do you believe God commands marriage?

  14. Rob says:

    It is not self contradictory to say “we cannot call something a command if it doesn’t appear in the Bible” because the Bible literally tells us not to do that. God tells us not to add commands to his word. Adding a command is a violation of that command. This is sinning.

    “Well no one denies that unmarried people, or those who use contraception are people. Even those who murder their children are people. We are just arguing that they are sinning. Or, in the case of those that are unmarried, that someone is sinning. or several someones. That God calls on unmarried people to marry, and on married people to be open to children. That when we put systems in place to prevent unmarried people from sinning, we are sinning; and when we, as married people, refuse to be open to children, we are sinning.”

    This quote of yours from Eight Leaps II lumps ALL unmarried people into the set of people who are sinning. Additionally, it makes the claim that ALL unmarried people are called to marriage, not just ones who are failing the “avoid fornication” test. These are your own words. This is why we had to go into this discussion about there being a lack of command or spoken will of God for ALL to marry. You claim that you never said “God commands ALL” to marry, but you said that right here in this quote. So either you’ve changed your mind since, or you’re contradicting your own posts.

    • Von says:

      It is not self contradictory to say “we cannot call something a command if it doesn’t appear in the Bible”

      Here is where copy/pasting would again come in handy. What was it I called self-contradictory? Like… quote me? Hint: It wasn’t what shows up in quotes, above. Here is what I actually said:

      Is it true that ‘We can’t call something a sin unless it goes directly against a command of God’? It would seem that, to avoid self contradiction, that ‘We can’t’ needs to be shown in a command of God for this not to be self contradictory. (Ass“It is a sin to say something is a sin unless it goes against a Scriptural command”. But by that logic you now need to justify that statement, with a Scriptural command, since you claim something is a sin.

      • Rob says:

        I don’t know if you realize it or not, but you are very difficult to debate because you don’t own up to anything. I can tell you think you understand the argument I’m making, but you don’t. Are you asking me how I can justify saying “it’s a sin to call something a sin when it is not specified in the Bible”?

        Have you read those verses I used? God COMMANDS us to not add to/subtract from his word. The “we can’t” justification comes from God saying “DO NOT”. We cannot call something sin that God doesn’t call sin. We cannot call something a command that God doesn’t call a command. Why? Read the verses I posted.

        • Von says:

          Well, you would find it a lot easier if you would copy paste and stop trying to make up things I never said, and don’t say. Let’s try this again. You ask me:

          Are you asking me how I can justify saying “it’s a sin to call something a sin when it is not specified in the Bible”?

          And my answer is, ‘no, I never said that.’ Indeed I never would, because it is too vague and formless, for one thing. What does ‘specified’ mean, for example? No, what I said was, how do you justify saying:

          ‘We can’t call something a sin unless it goes directly against a command of God’?

          Unless you were willing to show us the command of God that lists this. Where is the command of God that says, “Thou shalt not call something a sin unless it goes directly against a command of God!”?

          You link ‘calling something a sin’ and ‘commands of God’. As I understand you, and I could well be wrong, you think that we should only call things sins if and only if we can find direct, clear, commands of God that say ‘X is a sin’ or the equivalent. The problem with this theory is that no one in Scripture seems to hold it. Pretty much every lists other ways we can know God’s will, and that if we don’t do God’s will that is sin.

    • Von says:

      This quote of yours from Eight Leaps II lumps ALL unmarried people into the set of people who are sinning.

      Only if you rip it from its context. As you yourself have pointed out, indeed as you have quoted me, my statement is ‘the overwhelming majority’. Paul uses the word ‘every’ man to refer to those who should be married and then, several verses later, points out that his ‘every’ doesn’t mean ‘each and every one’ but ‘most’. So I feel comfortable doing the same.

      Additionally, it makes the claim that ALL unmarried people are called to marriage, not just ones who are failing the “avoid fornication” test. These are your own words.

      Well, no, they aren’t. My words don’t say anything about ‘not just the ones’. Although, it is true, fornication is by no means the only way God calls us to marriage. Marriage is the norm, with several good and sufficient reasons. It is not good for man to be alone, after all.

      • Rob says:

        Look, if you didn’t want people to think you mean “all”, then you should not have phrased it that way. This quote of yours could go either way depending on your mood to mean “all” christians in general or some group. Again, because you are so slippery when it comes to debating, I have no choice but to clarify as much as possible. And it doesn’t matter what percentage of people you claim fall under a command if you’ve added the command to the Bible. It would still be violating his command of not adding to his word.

        • Von says:

          Look, if you didn’t want people to think you mean “all”, then you should not have phrased it that way

          Feel free to tell the apostle Paul that he shouldn’t have said that ‘every’ man should have his own wife, and ‘every’ woman her own husband. I didn’t use the word ‘all’, and in the context of my overall article, and series of articles, I believe we have been clear.

          it doesn’t matter what percentage of people you claim fall under a command if you’ve added the command to the Bible. It would still be violating his command of not adding to his word.

          This is incredibly true. Best thing you’ve said so far. In fact I am writing a whole post to show a) What commands the Scriptures do give to marriage and b)The other ways in Scripture we find that it is God’s will for people to marry.

    • Jeff says:

      I’m going to try to say this as respectfully as I can. Do you read your own posts before you post them? Because literally, I do not get how you can quote someone and then in the very next paragraph completely misrepresent what was just quoted. This is what makes having a discussion difficult if not impossible. When you go so far as to quote someone, and then you show from your own paraphrase that you do not understand what was just quoted. Try reading what you quoted a few times over and see if you didn’t misrepresent it immediately in the next paragraph.

  15. Rob says:

    I would never compare you to the Apostle Paul. Not if I were you. He was speaking from divine inspiration from God himself, you are writing an opinion blog. Additionally, please quote your Eight Steps II article where you say that marriage is commanded not for everyone, but certain people. Actually, in your entire Eight Steps series, I cannot find anything where you state this. All you have is your blanket statement.

    I very much look forward to this post…

  16. Von says:

    I would never compare you to the Apostle Paul. Not if I were you. He was speaking from divine inspiration from God himself, you are writing an opinion blog.

    I wasn’t recommending it. I was recommending that you not criticize him for using the word ‘every’ to speak to who should marry… and by implication me for imitating him with some rather broad statements.

  17. Von says:

    Additionally, please quote your Eight Steps II article where you say that marriage is commanded not for everyone, but certain people.

    Please quote me where I said I said this???

  18. Von says:

    If you wish to know where we deal with the issue of overall exceptions to the general norm of marriage, I could suggest a few entire posts. The posts ‘Eight Leaps’ were actually not dealing with marriage, per se, but were dealing the the issue of so-called ‘birth control’ in the context of an article, to which we were responding.

    See this post, for example, where we deal with the issue:
    http://truelovedoesntwait.com/answering-objections/jesus-paul-daniel-and-real-men/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers