Born Free

Time for a fourth installment in this little series. I started reading Deuteronomy this evening, and verse 39 sparked my interest in writing. The verse reads:

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it (ESV).

Take note of the heart of the verse: "your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil." 

Deuteronomy is the written record of Moses teaching the grown up versions of those "children" about all God had done for and to Israel and why... Why they were in the wilderness. Why they'd had to grow up in the wilderness. Why their parents had to die in the wilderness. And why they were now being allowed to go in and take it. Moses also told them how God expected them to live in the Promised Land, but that's a subject for another time.

The parents died because they were accountable for their sins stemming from unbelief. Oh, they believed in Yahweh their God alright, but they didn't believe he would do what he had promised. 

The children lived to dwell in that land "flowing with milk and honey," because they weren't accountable for sin--theirs or anybody's, They had "no knowledge of good or evil." I like the way the NLT translates the thought. "I will give the land to your little ones—your innocent children." Yes, God saw those children as innocent. 

This is the same innocence Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 7:9. "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died." I also like the way the NLT reads: "At one time I lived without understanding the law...."  Read and consider carefully: Paul was born somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 years after Moses penned the Law. He never lived when the Law didn't exist, so the only thing he can be talking about is the innocence of his childhood before he was able to understand the Law--when he had "no knowledge of good or evil." He was alive then! But, the false teaching of Original Sin says he was conceived with the stain of Adam's sin--spiritually dead! That's impossible!

Like you and me, Paul was born free. He wasn't stained with anyone's sin until he was stained with his own. 

I recently read a blog post by Jim Denison that refreshed my spirit. I urge you to read it, because on this subject, I think he hit the bull's eye. Here's a quote from Denison's article I want to end this post commenting on:

We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.

I can swallow that as long as "we all" means those of us who have reached the "age of responsibility" and sinned. The idea of the head of a people as their representative who sums up their nature is clearly present in Scripture, and is one reason God sees us who have accepted Jesus' Lordship as sinless and perfect through grace. Jesus represents us and sums us up to God. I can't agree that we've all inherited a "corrupted" nature just from being born, because Jesus was born free from all corruption, and he was born with a human nature just like the rest of us (Hebrews 2:17). There's no doubt we were all born a weak, corruptible nature inherited from Adam. Even Jesus had that temptable nature (Matthew 4).

But, I like the buy-in idea, that "conscious and voluntary decision." That's exactly what Paul means in the so often misunderstood passage of Romans 5:12. Physical death is a by-product of our lost access to the Tree of Life, but doesn't necessarily imply sin or guilt. Spiritual death, however--the loss of one's good standing with God due to sin's stain--is a death no one will experience unless they choose it. To become part of that fallen humanity summed up in Adam's nature one must buy-in, that is make a "conscious and voluntary decision." Unfortunately, all of us who live long enough to reach that "age of responsibility" at some point do buy-in to Adam's sin-slain nature. Thankfully, there remains the Second Adam, and I've bought-in to his nature instead. I chose to. That's nothing to brag about. It've earned nothing. It's more of a confession, appeal, and surrender. It's a gift from God, but he never forced me to take it, and even now he will not force me to keep it. But, I want it. I choose Christ. You can to.

We were born free.

You're Free to Choose (Freedom in Christ, 3)

Experience can be a great teacher... if you can keep your head (literally or otherwise). It's not that the experience itself teaches you anything, but experience is the raw material we sift through in thoughtful meditation, so that through thinking deeply and spiritually, guided by the unerring direction of Scripture, we can come to know ourselves, and see the hand of God in our lives. If you don't keep your head, though, and don't seek the guidance of Scripture, all the experiences in the world won't profit you anything. "The heart is deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9a). 

So, for what it's worth, I do not perceive anything significantly different in my experience of becoming a sinner than I read about in Adam and Eve's experience of it. Is my (thoughtful analysis of my) experience true? Well, the guidance of Scripture tells me, "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:14-15). That's how sin happens, and it's exactly how sin happened (and, unfortunately, happens) to me. Maybe I should say, it's how I happen to sin? Read Genesis 3. Isn't this exactly what happened with Adam and Eve? Adam did not pass on to me a corrupted nature already full of somebody else's sin. He passed on to me the only nature he had, the one made in God's likeness, endowed with the gift of free moral agency, to be born as an inexperienced baby, simultaneously completely capable of both good and evil. Corruptible. Not corrupt. Sorry Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Arminius, Piper, Tozer, Sproul, etc., etc., etc. The idea babies are born corrupted by Adam's sin is just false!

The prophet Ezekiel made this all too clear. He wrote, "'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (18:19-20). 

If we're born somehow guilty by nature of Adam's sin then it would seem the sons (and daughters) are, in fact, suffering for the sin of father Adam. Think about it. Ezekiel says no. Original sin is not a Bible doctrine. That being so, Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings built on the idea are unnecessary at best, just plain heresy at worst. The true teaching is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. 

I'll sum this up by referring to the way God has communicated through Scripture. People have lobbed proof-texts back and forth at each other about free will or the lack of it for centuries. It's not that the Bible passages (like Ezekiel 18) don't settle the question. They do! But, there's an even simpler way to settle it. "Faith comes from hearing... the word of God" (Romans 10:17). The word of God is written to  our minds, to convince us to change them and decide to put all trust in Jesus. Read through the book of Acts and take special note of how the gospel was preached. The preachers testified, exhorted, reasoned, and persuaded. If faith is an un-asked-for miraculous gift given to some and not to others, why persuade? Does someone miraculously given faith by unconditional activity of the Holy spirit need convincing? Is the Holy Spirit so incapable of directly imparting un-asked-for faith that his subjects need further convincing? The whole idea is unreasonable. The apostles and evangelists preached to persuade, because believing in Jesus is a free-will decision any and all of us are free to make if we want to. Faithful preachers try to commend the truth to the hearts and minds of reasonable people hoping they will truly think about it. Any who will with "good and honest hearts" (Luke 8:15) are free, and always have been free, to choose, and choose they do. 

"The gospel does not allow the luxury of indecision." Every time you hear it you decide; one way or the other, you decide. What you choose will have eternal consequences. God's done all the work to set his Son up as Savior. He's the one who's sent the church out to preach Christ. It's your move. Choose wisely!

What Makes Us Free to Believe? (Freedom In Christ, 2)

Earlier this week I posted the first in this series and briefly summarized some basic Roman Catholic beliefs about one's freedom to make the decision to have faith in Christ. I found the specific doctrines as worded in the Catechism to be true to Scripture. 

Today, I want to consider the ideas of the two prevailing views of freedom in Protestantism: Arminianism and Calvinism (A&C). Today's disclaimer: This isn't simple stuff. It can get extremely complicated, because God, frankly, is pretty complicated, but his entry level requirements for us are actually fairly simple. I hope and pray I can present some clear thoughts here. Ask questions for clarification if you want to. This'll be a slightly long post, so thanks for reading the whole thing. I'll try to keep the rest of the series briefer. 

Technically, A&C are both products of the "Reformed" faith tradition, which refers to the Protestant Reformation in general, but distinguishes them from similar, but not identical, Lutheranism, and specifically ties them together as efforts to deal with the doctrine of Man's Total Hereditary Depravity (THD) in a Biblical way as contrasted with Roman Catholicism's hybrid Bible + church tradition approach. Typically these days, "Reformed" is applied only to Calvinism, but historically it applies to both.

The idea of THD is that the sin of Adam corrupted his nature so fully that he passed it on to all his descendants down through the ages up to and including us. That's the doctrine of original sin, typically attached to Romans 5 (but I'm convicted Romans 5 doesn't teach anything of the sort). But, THD doesn't just say human nature is corrupt, It says it's "totally" corrupt so that the individual is not naturally free to do any good thing, whether thought or act, that would commend him to a holy God as a candidate of his loving favor in any way. The doctrine doesn't mean every person is as corrupt as he or she can possibly be, but that every person is in fact corrupt in every part of his or her nature. 

So, here's the part both Arminianism and Calvinism agree about: Corrupted human nature has rendered man free to choose his thoughts and actions within the limitations of his nature, which is totally corrupt, meaning, anything you want to do that's consistent with a corrupt nature is there before you to choose. However, you are not free to decide to have faith in Christ on your own, because that would commend you to God as having done something to commend yourself to his perfect holiness. Why's that a problem? Well, because it is perceived to be at odds with Ephesians 2:8-10 and the Protestant doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone through Grace Alone. I'll come back to that in a future post, Lord willing.

Calvinism's solution: Unconditional Election (UE)--the idea that God "unconditionally" chooses some to be saved, and leaves others unelected. Think it through. If THD is right, and no one can do anything to commend himself to God, and there are some who are commended by God as saved and holy--as his special people, then it follows God must have chosen them unconditionally. This ultimately means saved people have done absolutely nothing at all to make themselves any more viable a candidate for salvation than unsaved people. It means no one is free to choose faith in Christ unless God has first "unconditionally" chosen him by his own unsearchable sovereignty. UE forces Calvinists to accept the doctrine of Limited Atonement, that Jesus' death wasn't for everyone, but just for those God chose. However, the Scriptures make it very clear Jesus' death was at least potentially for everyone (2Cor 5:14-15; Heb 2:9), and than anyone who wants to can come to him in faith (John 3:16; Acts 10:34-35). Calvinism says none of us are free to choose salvation in Christ. I'm not a Calvinist. Calvinism isn't consistent with Scripture. 

Arminianism's solution: Prevenient Grace (PG)--the idea God restores the gift of free will to all fallen humans so that each person is free to choose or reject his offer of salvation in Christ. Like Calvinism, it's based in the idea mankind has lost full free will in the Fall (Genesis 3). Unlike Calvinists, Arminians believe what the Bible says about Christ's atoning death being potentially for everyone, and that salvation is available to everyone. If I believed in the doctrine of Original Sin, I'd be strongly drawn to Arminianism, it's much more consistent with Scripture than Calvinism. But, the doctrine of Original Sin is not Scriptural. The "original sin" of Adam and Eve really happened, and the partial corruption of Creation and humanity resulted from it, but Adam's sin wasn't passed on naturally through procreation to his descendants. I challenge anyone to find a Bible passage that says it was. 

So, Calvinism denies true free will. Arminianism affirms true free will, even though it supports the false idea of Original Sin. Neither system is entirely wrong, but neither is entirely right either. So, I'm not Roman Catholic, Calvinist, or Arminian in my understanding of Scripture. I believe every man, woman and child has true free will, and I'll start explaining why in the next post, Lord willing. 

Free to Believe? (Freedom In Christ, 1)

In 2007 the Newsboys released a song about freedom in Christ called I Am Free. The lyrics begin:

Through you the blind will see,
Through you the mute will sing,
Through you the dead will rise,
Through you all hearts will praise,
Through you the darkness flees,
Through you my heart screams,
I am free! Yes, I am free!

Freedom in Christ is a major theme in the Bible, and a central blessing of the Christian life. But, a lot of us don't fully understand it. I think I have a fair understanding of what it means, but there are still points where law and grace and free will and God's sovereignty intersect that I'm sure are still over my head. No one fully understands all the mind of God, except God (1Corinthians 2:11). On the other hand, God intends us to understand everything written in the Bible (Deuteronomy 29:29).

In coming days and weeks I'll be blogging about freedom in Christ, free will before and after salvation, and why and when we may choose to insist on our freedoms, or sacrifice them for the greater good. I hope you'll tune in and stay tuned, and that the thoughts will bless you. Post comments and questions on your mind, and they may help shape this series.

Back to the lyrics. I think they're Biblically accurate. Through Christ all those things are realities. As a disciple of Jesus my heart truly does scream, "I am free! Yes, I am free!" It's freedom "in" Christ. Salvation puts me "in" Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). Before I explore the breadth and scope of this freedom "in" Christ, I suppose I need to say something about who's free to get "in" Christ to start with, but before I do, one disclaimer: In all these posts I'm starting with the assumption we all understand man never has and still cannot take the first step toward God. God took the first steps toward us by making us as we are, and accomplishing the hope of salvation through the work of Christ. It's God's action toward us in sending the gospel out into the world for us to hear, and as a response to hearing, choose faith -Romans 10:17. God having made salvation possible and available, the question I'll be dealing with in the first few posts in this series is, who is free to accept God's offer of salvation, and who isn't.

There are several views about who's free to come to faith in Christ and who's not. Roman Catholic doctrine has its approach. Arminianism and Calvinism may be the most widespread views among Protestants. But, there are also fairly widespread views like Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism that are usually seen as heretical by the others. For today, it'll be enough to say something about the Roman Catholic view.

Roman Catholics (according to the Catechism) believe the fact of a person's existence proves his freedom to come to know God. "The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation... is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence" (p.13). In other words, if a person did not have the freedom to seek God, learn of him, and thereby come to know him and live in harmony with him, it would be an unloving act to create that person to start with. Since God is so thoroughly loving that he "is love" (1John 4:8), it's safe to say he creates all people free to seek him and know him if they want to. On this point, Roman Catholicism and I are in full agreement, for the apostle Paul affirms this truth in Acts 17:26-28.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for "In him we live and move and have our being"; as even some of your own poets have said,“For we are indeed his offspring."

The Catechism explains man's faith "response" to God's grace in Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3. "Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed" (p.40). "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and makes it easy to accept and believe the truth. Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason" (pp.41-42). "Man's response to God by faith must be free, and therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act" (p.44). Roman Catholicism affirms the aid of the Holy spirit in one's process of coming to faith, denies that anyone is forbidden the opportunity, and insists coming to faith in God is ultimately a free choice every person can either make or refuse to make. This being so, they also believe a person having freely chosen faith in Christ can freely choose to turn away from it. "We can lose this priceless gift, as Paul indicated to Timothy: 'Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting... certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith'" (p.44, Scripture quoted from 1Timothy 1:18-19).

The Bible says God's intention in making every human being is that he or she seek him, and then find him. This is a very strong argument for the freedom of the will in choosing or denying the faith. While there are numerous examples in which Roman Catholicism departs from clear Bible teaching, the above examples seem to be consistent with the truth. Next, Lord willing, I'll write about the two dominant Protestant points of view.

Losing Like a Christian

I always pause to think about Joseph Barsabas Justus when reading Acts 1. It was prophesied someone had to take Judas' place as the Twelfth apostle, and his name was put forth alongside Matthias. The chapter closes with the words, "And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles." 

I hate to say it, but I feel closer to Joseph than Matthias. I was a late bloomer (not 5' tall until 10th grade and I wore "husky" jeans... yeah). I had my share of being last or almost last picked for dodgeball. I had a couple of self-esteem-crushing-embarrassments in elementary school that still hurt to think about. And so, on... this isn't about self-pity, but just to say, I can identify with the losers out there. I identify with Joseph. 

It wasn't as though I had nothing going for me as a kid. I've been labelled "talented" and "gifted," for what those things are worth, as long as I can remember. I did eventually grow in strength and to a modest height. Joseph was obviously talented too. Of all the men among the disciples who weren't already apostles, he was one of the two best. But, he wasn't "best" enough. God didn't choose him--he chose Matthias. 

I hurt for Joseph when I read Acts 1. I've been "rejected" when seeking ministry positions I really wanted, and started comparing myself to the one chosen, sometimes able to say, "yeah, I get it," and at other times thinking, "you've got to be kidding me!" It wouldn't have been an issue if Joseph's name hadn't been put forth, but it was put forth, and he was rejected. He never enters the narrative again to my knowledge. How did he deal with that?

I don't know how he dealt with it. The text just doesn't say. But, considering he was of the kind of faith and character the disciples considered apostolic, I have to assume he handled it ok. I recently witnessed a brother handle crushing rejection with as much unselfishness, love and grace as I've ever seen, and I admire him dearly for it--as much as I admire Joseph. Can you relate?

To quote a less than godly source, "You can't always get what you want." Opportunities are always limited, and there's always someone better. Sometimes the people who ought to evaluate you God's way, instead use worldly standards. It happens. You lose sometimes. It's just the way things are this side of eternity. But, we have the hope in Christ that his assessment of our merits on Judgment day will be truly fair and accurate, and, as obedient believers, our places in heaven will be exactly where and what they ought to be (Luke 19:16-26). So, if you have to lose, trust God that he has your destiny under control, and lose like a Christian!

Engaging Today's Prodigal (Book Review)

I listen to Christian programming on the radio a lot. The programs vary in their usefulness to me, and in their accurate adherence to the Bible, but I've only found a couple of the programs/speakers I just can't get anything from at all.

I was listening this week and heard an interview with author Carol Barnier, a self-styled former prodigal. She was a preacher's daughter, who grew up in a good home in which her parents were loving, practiced their faith, and tried to pass it on to their children. Something went wrong in Carol's youth, though, and she eventually left faith behind and joined the late Madeline Murray O'Hare's organization, American Atheists. She became not just an atheist, but what I call an anti-theist, someone actively trying to destroy others' faith in God.

Well, of course she eventually came back to faith in Christ with the help of a preacher who kindly began the process with simple questions about the historical Jesus. Over time, she rebuilt her faith, or rather built it as her own for the first time by examining the truths of Christianity reasonably. 

Her book, Engaging Today's Prodigal: Clear Thinking, New Approaches, and Reasons for Hope offers a look at the various types of prodigal sons and daughters. They're not all smoking, drinking, drugging party-animals who have left their roots to be free from the Bible's "restraints." Some walk away because their questions have not been answered, or have been answered poorly, and they're seeking a worldview that makes sense to them. The church and family can influence (not control) these truth-seeking prodigals by lovingly, patiently, and consistently engaging their questions reasonably and pointing them to the more than ample answers God has to offer.

Over 7 chapters the author exposes a series of myths that will encourage Christian parents struggling with how to understand why their beloved prodigal son or daughter has strayed, and what they can (and can't) do about it. I kindle-highlighted and bookmarked several places where there are truths I want to share with the church when the opportunity presents. In the second section of 12 chapters, Barnier examines "do's and dont's" of dealing with prodigals drawn from her own life experiences in the light of her now better understanding of the truth. Finally, she offers encouragement to those concerned about prodigals in their lives, and ends the book with a bonus section aimed at offering the church some advice, and doesn't close before giving us a section with comments from other prodigals. 

For me, there's a lot of basic stuff throughout the book that I speed-read my way through looking for the meaty nuggets, but there are meaty nuggets to be found. Pick up your copy on your e-reader. It's worth a couple of days' reading and will help you look at some of the youth who've left or are leaving the church in a better light, and maybe even give you some tools to help bring them back. James 5:19-20!

The Bible and Sex

Sex. For some it's a taboo topic, but not for God. He invented it, remember? There are plain descriptions of sexual situations in several passages in the Bible, and the Song of Solomon, though not about sex, per se, is rich with allusions to the joy and beauty of sex in a pure, married relationship. This subject needs frank discussion in today's oversexed world.

Oversexed? If the very idea seems foreign to you, it's your first clue you've been desensitized and your mind's been deeply affected by the world's unhealthy sexuality. If you eat too much chocolate cake it'll make you sick. It's the same with sex. If you eat chocolate cake with poison in it, it doesn't matter how good it tastes, it'll harm or kill you. Same with sex. There's nothing inherently wrong with sex. God did create us as sexual creatures. Some among us have less desire for it than others, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having a strong desire for it. However, as with all pursuits of pleasures in this world, God has given us boundaries that we must respect if we would be blessed. God never gave a command that wasn't for our good (1John 5:3). He knows us intimately (John 2:24-25). If he says "don't," it's to protect you and others from something harmful. Do you trust his word? Break God's laws to your own hurt--perhaps even eternal hurt (1Corinthians 6:9-20). I'll get back to this shortly, but first, listen to what the Bible says about sex in marriage.

What does the Bible say about it? Well, consider these PG rated passages: "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?" (Proverbs 5:18-20). "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine... The king has brought me into his chambers." "Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your mouth is lovely... Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that graze among the lilies... Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, I will go away to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense. You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you. Come with me from Lebanon, my bride; come with me from Lebanon. Your lips drip nectar, my bride; honey and milk are under your tongue; the fragrance of your garments is like the fragrance of Lebanon. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits." "How beautiful are your feet in sandals... Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand. Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle... How beautiful and pleasant you are, O loved one, with all your delights! Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. It goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding over lips and teeth. I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me." "Make haste, my beloved,  and be like... a young stag on the mountains of spices." (Selections from Song of Solomon 1, 4, 7, and 8). 

Hrm, it seems like sex within a committed marriage relationship can be pretty romantic and satisfying spiritually, emotionally, and physically. That's the precise point! This worlds cheapened, animal view of sex cannot satisfy the desire for sex in all three of those ways. It can't even satisfy you physically for long. It's just like chocolate cake. Eventually you'll get sick of it. Or like poisoned cake. It just might kill you--and I'm not really talking about physical death. 

All sex outside of a legitimate marriage between one man and one woman is sinful. I could list a long roll of passages that say so, but it's enough to say, God showed his plan by creating one man and one woman in the beginning. The inspired words are, "Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:23-25). Jesus affirms this in Matthew 19. Sex outside marriage will hurt you or someone else in this life. If you do not turn away from it and follow the Lord's way, it will cost you your soul. It's very clear: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Hebrews 13:4). I hope you can hear and accept this, and may God bless your holy, happy sex life within the security of a committed, Christian marriage.