• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is Celibacy REALLY a valid choice?

I am curious as to the response of others to the following: to what degree is marriage a component of sexual desire?
Click to expand...

One of the toughest philosophical and theological questions of the day and I am am not sure. I've struggled with this time and time again and still do not have a full, total, and harmonious answer. God could join people in heart and mind and thus they could be joined even if there is no sex. For example quadriplegics. But then that is an exception to the norm and thus philosophically speaking we are not to build theories or ideological constructs from the exceptions. Another example would be the aged. Can they covenant together even at an age where they have no sexual drive? I think so but again that is not a norm but an exception. It is a tough issue theologically as well as philosophically.

If a man finds himself without sexual desire, wouldn't it be best for him to remain celibate?
Click to expand...

It would seem to be a clear yes from the teaching of Scripture when dealing with the norms.

What about unnatural sexual desire? I know I may be wading in deep water here, but if a man found himself without a sexual desire for a heterosexual relationship, should he remain celibate?
Click to expand...

I would think that would be accurate as it would be a way for him to stay in step with Christ, the Holy Spirit living inside of him. The temptation would not be sin but to act on it would and if he for some reason does not have any desire for a woman she likely would suffer if he did unite with her when he has no desire for her.

Is a marriage without a sexual component a marriage? Can there be marriage without sex (no jokes please!)?
Click to expand...

On this one it goes back to the first part above. Maybe in exceptional circumstances. But this is just a tough issue to resolve, at least it is for me right now. If I follow a Dr. Berkeley's Christian idealism as an interpretive method then yes as the union is a bond of an idea and the physical act is only a manifestation of the real, the metaphysical idea in both God's mind and the people.

But, in most ways I am not an idealist philosopher. I normally agree with Dr. Sproul that our faith and thus the universe is a duality that literally does have both a non-material and material element to it. In that interpretive method of Scripture and worldview it seems the dual elements needs to be there, both the idea of the dedication in heart and mind and the sexual act.

I am clearly not a B.F. Skinner materialist so I can rule out those options on the other side of the ideological pendulum.

But still I am stuck and have been some time in this area and precise question as there seems to be numerous variables with a norm and then exceptions to the norms. :?
 
:lol: Well, I'm hoping you'll chime in and give me a clear answer that I can run with. You have asked one of the toughest questions ever in that one :cool:

I could call Professor Luck but.......in talking about this question with him I have to go on vacation for a week :lol:

So, please do offer your thoughts because I'm like a 4x4 Jeep in a rut with mud up to the seats at this point in trying to put the puzzle pieces together on that question.
 
i see no problem with a covenant between a male and a female who agree that sex (or limited aspects of it), for whatever reason, will not be part of the relationship.
as long as both parties agree to the terms up-front.
 
I really would love to get your thoughts on can quadriplegics unite in a union and if so how would you explain that portion of the equation?
 
obviously they would not have the physical aspects of the union, but a mental union? why not?
would the Almighty reject their loving lifetime committment to each other because of their inability to consumate the union? i would not think so.
maybe i do not understand your question?
 
My thought on this is if you are an older couple and the physical ability is not there but the love is what stops that from being a marriage? I am sure this happens quite frequently when one spouse is left after the demise of the other who remarries late in age. There are numerous health problems that prohibit the physical ability of sex (such as ED, heart problems in which they are not healthy enough for sex). Would you say that these two people who truly love each other and are united in other aspects such as mission and vision and mind are not married?
 
Hey Steve,

I think he was taking a dig at me being difficult....

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTT....

If marriage is a covenant only, and a not necessarily a sexual union, then what difference does it make if the members of the covenant are male and female? Why not either or both?

I think that marriage must therefore be composed of two elements:

1. COVENANT
2. ONE FLESH

can there be sexual union without marriage? yes. Otherwise all rapes are marriages.

MARRIAGE=COVENANT + ONE FLESH
MA=CO+OF

Now, the question is begged, what is ONE FLESH? Is it merely the sexual union of male and female? No. ONE FLESH, or CLEAVING implies more than just a sexual union, but that of becoming ONE. They were TWO, now they are ONE. You can only become ONE through relationship.

Therefore, I would say that ONE FLESH = SEXUAL UNION x RELATIONSHIP

OF=SU x RE

Summation,

MARRIAGE = COVENANT + (SEXUAL UNION x RELATIONSHIP)

MA=CO + (SU x RE)

The term CONSUMMATION has always been implied as the 'sealing' of the covenant. Your scenario of two paraplegics getting married would have to deal with the issue of consummation. They could have COVENANT. They could have RELATIONSHIP.

Now, if you want to say that the definition of SEXUAL UNION does not necessarily mean physical contact, then you would have no issue. But note, I made SU and RE multipliers of one another. Let's say in a normal relationship SU had a value of 5, and RE had a value of 5. That would make their ONE FLESH score a 25.

In the case of the paraplegics, they may only score a .5 on the SU scale. In that case, their RE factor would have to be tremendously higher to compensate. For the paraplegics to have a matching ONE FLESH score of 25, then their RE factor would have to be a score of 50. In other words, the paraplegics may be limited in the SU component, but could emphasize the RE factor to be ONE FLESH.

I would also think that the paraplegics might have a stronger COVENANT bond as well.

Of course, you would have to throw all this out the window if the term 'ONE FLESH' MUST include a conventional sexual union.

Which would lead us to the next logical question: What is sex? Is it physical only, or can it be mental?

But lets save that for another day....
 
I hope I am not missing the point of the question that seems to be on the table at the moment. Are we talking about an old issue of what constitutes marriage?
 
Carolina,

I see your point. In that case, however, they already had consummated their marriage, so that component is there. In that scenario, those couples would have to rely more on RELATIONSHIP and COVENANT. Their SEXUAL UNION score may be negligible, but it would still be there, if only in memory.

Blessings,

Doc
 
Ooops, should have looked again before clicking on the submit button. :lol:
 
Now, going back to our original topic: celibacy....

Here is an interesting verse:

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Some have no choice but to be celibate, whether by birth defect or by hand of man. However, the very difficult portion of this is what I have put into bold.

Jesus declares that some will never have sexual union because of the Kingdom of God's sake. In other words, because, like the Apostle Paul (Who wished that all were as he, Unmarried - 1st Corinthians 7:7-9 ). Those who remain unmarried for the Kingdom of God's sake do so by design, in order to place all their emphasis and talents on Christ, and not on caring for a wife. God calls these eunuchs, and obviously He is not referring to homosexuals. For Christ to say some have made themselves homosexuals for the kingdom of God's sake, would be blasphemy!

So we have Christ giving all sorts of reasons why one would have no sexual union (be a eunuch). Because God never intended that all people would get married. Therefore, the point is that it is not a failure or a cause for despair if one remains a eunuch or in the celibate state. And it very well may be a special calling of God, or something that is for the best, according to the will and purpose of God.

Indeed, Christ says in Matthew that it is not for everyone to have sexual union in marriage, but he who can receive it, let him receive it. He who will never marry does not need the law against divorce. Therefore, to those that are married, these words of Christ about divorce and two flesh becoming one, apply. So the word eunuch clearly applies to celibate men, as well as castrated men.

This is a hard passage for me, so that last line 'but he who can receive it, let him receive it', really speaks to me.

Doc
 
you guys surely know how to complicate things :D
 
Complicate? :?

Actually it is rather simple. ;) God gives one gift to one and another or different gift to another. Spiritual gifts can and do alter natural law. Natural law brings death but through the gift of healing one can be healed. Natural law is people can only speak their native language, but affirming tongues were given to some clearly we see see some have been gifted with another language by the Holy Spirit's gifting without learning that language. Just some clear examples where Spiritual gifts in the new order alter the natural order.

How is that very complicated? The only way it seems to be complicated is when we start trying to elevate one state to the universal state because then we have to work really really hard it seems to me in our effort of explaining away or stretching Christ and Paul's writings.
 
Which would lead us to the next logical question: What is sex? Is it physical only, or can it be mental?
Click to expand...

Now that one seems simple too: sex can only occur through the mental and physical working in concert. The physiological is wrapped up also in a holistic unit. So a sexual act is also a spiritual act as the body is connected intricately to the spirit. Or as Dr. Millard J. Erickson says, the non-material and the material are in a dualistic solitary conditional unity while living in this age. Thus, the body cannot function without the spirit or soul.
 
DocInMO said:
...why one would have no sexual union (be a eunuch).
Click to expand...

Where is in evidence, Doc, that being a eunuch (unable to reproduce), equates to having no sexual union?

I know that is the common interpretation, but I don't believe it to be supportable.

Awww. Why am I bothering? I remain convinced that God DOES intend for all men and women, as His highest choice, to live their lives within a marriage. All later statements must fit within that framework, and seem to me to do so without any particular problem.

So, it is back to that agree-to-disagree with you guys, while loving you dearly anyway. :)
 
Cecil, I am curious to my questions about natural law and spiritual laws since you assert this is a natural law and not a moral law issue. Do you believe and recognize that Spiritual laws and gifts do indeed alter at times natural laws?

For example:
Gravity (Natural Law: NL) can be altered by the Spiritual Law (SL) of an ascension or resurrection.

Death (NL) can be altered by a SL of healing or resurrection.

Native language one is born with or learned (NL) can be altered by tongues (SL)

One who is born shy and with a phlegmatic personality, introverted, (NL) yet can becomea powerful evangelist with the gift of evangelism (SL)

Natural objects like metal does not float (NL) but by miraculous intervention God can make an ax head float in water (SL)

So would you affirm that even though with natural laws working there are cases where those laws are also altered by Spiritual laws that alter the natural norms?

If you do affirm the above that spiritual laws can alter natural laws why would you feel obligated to take the "ONLY natural order law" above and over any other subsequent text that might introduce something else into the equation?

Is it possible there is some other issue driving the theological steering wheel there? It looks like there might be, maybe an emotional issue, a personal issue or desire, a pain of some sort for ladies who have no man, or something of the like. From my observations I have seen some who look around and because they have a deep love for ladies who are hurting they want to take this route. Indeed a good motive from love for those hurting but apparently as it looks to me a burden that God never prescribed to be placed on all and thus in the end it looks like to me it places into Scripture a contradiction. That was Dr. Barth's point about Luther. He argued that Luther reacted emotionally in anger towards Rome's elevation of celibacy and thus set forth the exact opposite of Rome not because he was building his theology by the facts of Scripture alone in that point but from a reactive emotional mode in that one point where he went into Scripture with that emotion as his guiding point.

Knowing your big heart of love I could see how that motive could lead you that way where you want to do everything you can to make sure ladies have options. Noble intentions for sure!

Or maybe it is something else. Maybe it is the no change ideology that governs how you interpret the rest of Scripture. If so I'm confused as to how if this is a natural law then that any Spiritual law could ever alter a natural law if the no change ideology is applied even to natural law issue. So I am curious as to how you explain the natural law order and the spiritual law order and how those spheres can relate to one another in light of this particular subject of normal unions versus Spiritual gifts that could alter it through a gift of celibacy. I'd like to understand why you would trap yourself in that presupposition where you feel no later text can alter such a natural law, especially if you admit in the above equations that natural law can indeed be altered by subsequent Spiritual laws through spiritual gifts.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Cecil, I am curious to my questions about natural law and spiritual laws since you assert this is a natural law and not a moral law issue. Do you believe and recognize that Spiritual laws and gifts do indeed alter at times natural laws?
Click to expand...

There is a natural law of gravity. It is always in play. There is also a natural law of thermodynamics, via which the law of gravity can be temporarily superseded. However, if the motive power which makes thermodynamics work ceases, the natural result is that gravity takes back over.

No, I am not an idiot claiming that thermodynamics does not exist, or is flying immoral ("man was not meant to fly"), or any other bizarre aberration. What I am saying is that gravity holding us to the earth is the default and normal state for all of us. And that while we may fly from time to time, it is with the intent of getting back to earth. Some of us get to fly a LOT. But no human is naturally created to spend their lives floating about the sky without the law of gravity applying to them.

And you might say that the laws of thermodynamics prove the rule of gravitation.

Similar statements can be made regarding health and sickness. There is a natural law at work which says, That which a man sows, that shall he also reap." I reaped a diabetic state of health by sowing a sedentary life with horrible dietary habits (all while proudly being vegetarian, of course!) But there is also a law which says that healing was provided in the atonement, by His stripes I have been healed, and healing could manifest in my life this instant. Haven't seen it yet, but it is entirely possible. I believe.

I also believe that if I'll actually change my lifestyle habits, my health will improve. Miracles do exist, but the reason we call them miracles is because while God may well do them from time to time, they also prove the rule of sowing and reaping.

Which brings us back to marriage vs celibacy. What I am saying, hypothesizing, believing, and arguing for, is that marriage is the norm, God's normal intent, for adult human beings. It is where we are intended to live our lives under normal circumstances. It is analogous to the law of gravity, in my mind. We should either be in marriages or working to get into one, while admitting that there may be big issues keeping us from doing so.

The analogy isn't perfect. We have to work pretty hard to fly and experience good landings. It isn't our natural state. While we're born single, and die individually. Ok, fair enough. And I'll admit that Divinity has the right to interfere in the natural state, and say, "Hey you! I need you to focus on a mission to the exclusion of family." But to my mind, those exceptions simply prove the rule.

It is not the normal calling for humans, and shouldn't be elevated in our thinking to being an equally normal choice. I can't decide that I've been designed for gravitation-less living, while you were designed for gravity. If I try, my landing may not go so well. I may need to take flights. Maybe even a LOT of them But it really isn't the norm.

For me, God said, "It ISN'T good for mankind to be alone." In doing so, that became the de facto state that He intends, and for which He created us. In families, in marriages for adults. Anything else is a temporary aberration that proves the rule.

And while I thought I'd have some fun stirring up a discussion, I can't believe that this topic has gone on for 4 pages worth!
 
Alright we're getting somewhere.

We both agree to the norms. I agree that since people are born in genders that the natural law norm is for a union to develop. So we're on the same page there.

But, would you agree someone can be given a spiritual gift of celibacy that alters the natural law as long as that gift is in that person? You have admitted that spiritual gifts or spiritual laws can overrule natural laws. So, does the teaching by Paul where he says "I wish that all men were as I am [at that time single]. But each man has his own gift [implying some people do not have his gift of singleness] from God; one has this gift, another has that" (1 Cor. 7:7). Can the gift that Paul clearly had be a gift someone else has to that alters the natural law or urge to unite in sexual relations in a covenant union?

Let's even make it more practical. Suppose Dr. John Stott walked up to you and said: "Cecil, many years back I sensed the Lord calling me to this ministry. Furthermore, I from that point forward have had no desire for a sexual union. I believe the Lord has given me the spiritual gift of singleness like he gave to Paul."

Would you tell him he is wrong, in sin, or that he should pray that whatever he calls a gift should be removed from him so he can have that desire? If so what place in Scripture can you use to show that such a gift can only be temporary or should only be temporary instead of lasting from the time it is received until one's death?

I do not know of any way we can use a natural law to overrule a spiritual law unless we have a specific text that limits the time of duration for that spiritual law to be in use. It seems to me if we did we would also have to say, "a resurrection body cannot and should not always be able to ascend and pass through walls and the life since the natural laws at some point must or should take back over."

Your thoughts?
 
I would answer your Dr John Stott by saying two things:

a) I don't see it as being a gift of the spirit to be sought after. That would make it BETTER than the norm, and I REALLY don't see that! and,
b) If you are convinced that God has done some special work in you, taking you out of the norm for some purpose of His own, then enjoy your calling. But ...

*** Be awfully sure that it WAS God who did it, and,
*** Please don't call it an equal NORM along with marriage, nor assume that an adult who finds themselves in a single state due to death, divorce, or perhaps some trauma giving them problems (such as having been raped), is automatically being "called" to this state, or given a spiritual gift for it, or that God has declared Himself the only husband they need. In nearly all cases, they're just in between and need to be encouraged and helped to get into a good marriage.

Paul? He made quite a point of making sure that we knew he was NOT speaking for God when he said that he wished we could all be like himself, did he not? I find that significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top