Russell D. Moore’s Advice

-
From Moore’s post titled “How Much Do I Need to Know About My Potential Spouse’s Sexual Past? My Response:”


On the one hand, a man who glibly dismisses his past immorality is dangerous, for your future marriage and your future children.

On the other hand, your dismissing him automatically on the basis of immorality is also dangerous. If he is repentant, seeing his past sin as hell-deserving but crucified, then you should receive him (all else being equal), just as you have been received.

You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man. Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God. And you have rebelled at other points, and been forgiven. If you believe the gospel, you believe the gospel for everyone, and not just for yourself.

If your future husband is repentant, and forgiven, and yet you are “tortured” by the thoughts of his past, then the issue for you is one of personal pride and a refusal to see oneself as a gospel-forgiven sinner.

The issue for you with your future husband is discerning whether there are ongoing patterns, whether he agrees with God about the severity of this sin, and whether he has been cleansed from it by Golgotha Hill blood and Garden Tomb power.

Jesus was a virgin. His Bride wasn’t. He loved us anyway.

Comments

LPC said…
JK,

This is a very good post. Thanks for posting this JK.

Early on I made some research on the use of social networking sites, I looked at specifically the practice of Christian introduction sites. Research is one of the things I like to do.

I had a disagreement with one of my pastor friends on this because he has a bad opinion of this Christian online introductions.

One of the reasons I was ok with it is because of the situation where I am in. Over here we have country towns whose population is just a couple of thousands. One young lady wrote why she joined a Christian introduction service in the internet. She said that she wanted to find a husband from her little Baptist church (or whatever), but there are no young people there of her age range. She said, what is the girl to do, go to the pub or night clubs to find Mr Right?

She was right. At any rate there were ladies in that site who said they would not entertain men who have had multiple partners in their life time.

Now, reading this post, makes sense now why those Christian ladies said what they said. They were quite wise.

LPC
March 15, 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more