Bible Study Every Man's Battle: Putting An End to the Battle.

[Hopeful 2]

It is one thing to say to God, "I submit to you"; but it is quite another to understand what this actually means in how it works out in daily, practical living. The person who says to God, "I submit" remains a largely unsubmitted person in their living because this is so. In attitude, they desire to live before God as a "living sacrifice," but until God shows them, they simply can't understand what it means to be such a "sacrifice." Bit by bit, over time, God reveals to the person who is willing to submit to Him, and who consciously agrees to being under His control, what it is to be truly submitted to Him. So, then, it is only the "unsubmissive" who are saved and who walk with God, becoming less and less so as they continue with Him in a constant attitude of submission.

You have written a great follow up to James' "faith without work" essay.
Saying "I submit" without the corresponding actions, is "dead submission".

No one knows what "total submission" to God actually is.

I disagree.
Don't you know that God gives the gift of the Holy Ghost to the truly repentant/submissive ?
With such holy Help, how can a man try to live two kinds of life ? (holy and unholy)

We are all so blind to who we really are, so self-deceived, so comfortable in sin, so twisted by the World's demonic philosophies, that we simply cannot see what it is to be truly, totally submitted to God, though we use the phrase as though we do know. We can certainly desire total submission, but actually living in such a state is impossible except God progressively shows us what such living really is.

Those who are sick and tired of sin are under no such deception.
You are making excuses to continue in unrighteousness.

No, this is simply flat-out false - as you know very well. I've shown you many times now in other threads how unbiblical your statements are here. I'm not going to do so, again.

It doesn't matter what they call themselves, those who walk in and after the flesh are not of God.
It is written..."Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-21)

Some, perhaps. Many others are truly saved but simply in the process of learning what it is to be fully submitted to God.

Man can't be two "creatures" at once.
Either they have turned from sin and been reborn of God's seed, or they haven't.

No, this is a grossly simplistic, over-generalizing and false set of statements that just don't comport with the plain declaration of God's word. I've already shown you why in other threads.

The unsubmissive give themselves away when they commit a sin.
UN-submissive, UN-repentant, UN-Christian.

 

[Tenchi]

You have written a great follow up to James' "faith without work" essay.
Saying "I submit" without the corresponding actions, is "dead submission".

No, a discontinuity between what we say and how we live is the unavoidable nature of Christian living. Every born-again person must endure a process whereby what they desire - submission to God - He progressively brings to pass in their concrete, daily living. There is no shortcut to this process.

The Christian who says, "I submit to you, God" but in whose life there is no progression into an increasingly holy life whatever needs some careful inspection of their understanding of walking with God and what a life of submission to God looks like. Such a life is not the normal Christian life, though it may be the common one in North America.

I disagree.
Don't you know that God gives the gift of the Holy Ghost to the truly repentant/submissive ?
With such holy Help, how can a man try to live two kinds of life ? (holy and unholy)

I know you disagree. As other of our interactions have shown, you do so in profound - and, I think, very wilfull - misunderstanding of God's word.

By the way, your questions here don't actually serve to refute what I wrote about no one knowing what full submission to God actually is.

Anyway, no man has to "try to live two kinds of life." Every Christian knows the struggle of Romans 7 without having to try to do so. Sadly, many just settle into the struggle as the inevitable and unalterable condition of Christian living. If only they'd go on to the next chapter and learn to live in its truth!

Those who are sick and tired of sin are under no such deception.
You are making excuses to continue in unrighteousness.

No, you are making room for your own sin but by a very peculiar and God-opposing denial of it.

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

I'm offering God's "way of escape" from all sin that He lays out to us in His word. You object to His way because it is progressive rather than instantaneously perfecting. Well, your problem is with God, not me.

It doesn't matter what they call themselves, those who walk in and after the flesh are not of God.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly...

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

It is written..."Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-21)

Yes, as a common feature of their living. What the apostle John called "a practice of sin." Here's the same passage in the NASB:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Complaining about the "evil translation" of the NASB is not in the slightest a convincing rebuttal, by the way. It's just the fallacy called "poisoning the well," a sort of fallacious ad hominem attack that says nothing about the legitimacy of the translation, only your personal bias toward it. If you want to deny this translation of verse 21 - shared by a host of other English Bible translations - then you'll have to give a justification from the language of the passage in question that is also in synthesis with all of the rest of Scripture. This you have never been able to do in all of the exchanges we've had on your sinless-perfection self-deception.

Man can't be two "creatures" at once.
Either they have turned from sin and been reborn of God's seed, or they haven't.

No, people aren't two creatures simultaneously, but Christians most certainly have warring natures. See Romans 7:15-25, Galatians 5:17.

And people aren't plants.

1 John 1:8
8 If we [John as well as his readers] say that we have [present progressive tense] no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The unsubmissive give themselves away when they commit a sin.
UN-submissive, UN-repentant, UN-Christian.

Simply repeating these lies ad nauseum is not at all persuasive. It just illustrates the depth of your self-deception, which serves only to more strongly warn off others from it.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, a discontinuity between what we say and how we live is the unavoidable nature of Christian living.

That is straight out of the devil's play-book.
It is false.

Every born-again person must endure a process whereby what they desire - submission to God - He progressively brings to pass in their concrete, daily living. There is no shortcut to this process.

The Christian who says, "I submit to you, God" but in whose life there is no progression into an increasingly holy life whatever needs some careful inspection of their understanding of walking with God and what a life of submission to God looks like. Such a life is not the normal Christian life, though it may be the common one in North America.



I know you disagree. As other of our interactions have shown, you do so in profound - and, I think, very wilfull - misunderstanding of God's word.

By the way, your questions here don't actually serve to refute what I wrote about no one knowing what full submission to God actually is.

Anyway, no man has to "try to live two kinds of life." Every Christian knows the struggle of Romans 7 without having to try to do so. Sadly, many just settle into the struggle as the inevitable and unalterable condition of Christian living. If only they'd go on to the next chapter and learn to live in its truth!



No, you are making room for your own sin but by a very peculiar and God-opposing denial of it.

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

I'm offering God's "way of escape" from all sin that He lays out to us in His word. You object to His way because it is progressive rather than instantaneously perfecting. Well, your problem is with God, not me.



1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3 for you are still fleshly...

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.



Yes, as a common feature of their living. What the apostle John called "a practice of sin." Here's the same passage in the NASB:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Complaining about the "evil translation" of the NASB is not in the slightest a convincing rebuttal, by the way. It's just the fallacy called "poisoning the well," a sort of fallacious ad hominem attack that says nothing about the legitimacy of the translation, only your personal bias toward it. If you want to deny this translation of verse 21 - shared by a host of other English Bible translations - then you'll have to give a justification from the language of the passage in question that is also in synthesis with all of the rest of Scripture. This you have never been able to do in all of the exchanges we've had on your sinless-perfection self-deception.



No, people aren't two creatures simultaneously, but Christians most certainly have warring natures. See Romans 7:15-25, Galatians 5:17.

And people aren't plants.

1 John 1:8
8 If we [John as well as his readers] say that we have [present progressive tense] no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.



Simply repeating these lies ad nauseum is not at all persuasive. It just illustrates the depth of your self-deception, which serves only to more strongly warn off others from it.

 

[Tenchi]

That is straight out of the devil's play-book.
It is false.

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Certainly the serpent did not force Eve to sin, nor did it plant some “fallen angel” inside of Eve to possess her.
Eve desired the fruit because it was pleasant to her eyes, and good for food, and to make one wise.
The serpent merely inflamed what was already in man.
But the churches can’t see that. They say Adam’s nature changed after he sinned.

God's order was already moderated when the serpent tempted Eve. Compare her version and God's original words, you can see that certain contents are removed while new details were added. The order was given to Adam before Eve was created, so the logical conclusion is obvious, Eve was misinformed, the serpent took advantage of it, Adam was responsible for the fall, and he blamed both Eve and God for that.

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:16)
We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ (Gen. 3:2-3)

 

[Hopeful 2]

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
One must decide to leave the darkness in order to walk in the light.
Verse 8 addresses those still walking in darkness, while verse 7 addresses those walking in the light.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

"But if you are led by the Spirit,"

​

"Led by the Spirit"? What's this mean?

What it means, particularly when it comes to pornography, is to FLEE from this battle and notget engaged in it, rather than mustering all your willpower and pray to God for more to fight it. For anyone who still watches porn regularly, ask yourself whether you enjoy watching it or regret watching it afterwards, whether this is worth your precious free time and disposable income or a total waste of it, whether this is an escape from reality you think it is or a shackle that locks you in a shame-guilt-relief cycle. Salvation is not forced, it must be consensual, you can't be healed unless you WANT to be healed.

Yes, we ought to be led by the Spirit, I'm not gonna concur or contest that, I'm just telling you that don't deceive yourself. Being led by the spirit is contrary to being like by the flesh. When you're led by the flesh, you'll lust for a woman in your heart, certain section in your brain will light up, your heart rate spikes, and blood may rush into your manhood, you'll feel it. Despite whatever conviction and discipline you think you have, your body is HONEST, it will react to the sight on its own, and that's a sign of carnal thinking, a lack of spiritual maturity.

How do you know if you're really led by the spirit? See a woman as a human being made in the image of God equal to you, look her in the eye instead of ogling anywhere below her neck, and listen to her with your focus on her speech if she's talking. We live in an evil society of lust, women are often stripped of their humanity, their bodies commonly sexualized and objectified, be sober-minded of this sad reality and don't join the crowd. Treat women with respect and compassion as Christ treated various wayward women during his ministry, take any naughty thoughts into captivity, banish all your fleshly desires, and act stoically and professionally, be cool, calm and collected, don't either fawn over them like a simp or despise them like a misogynist. This graphic description may enrage the OP, but I don't care. If God's word really means anything to you, test it and follow it, don't build your house on shifting sand.

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. (1 Cor. 6:18)
But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:28)
“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” (Matt. 7:24-27)

 

[Tenchi]

1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
One must decide to leave the darkness in order to walk in the light.
Verse 8 addresses those still walking in darkness, while verse 7 addresses those walking in the light.

As I've pointed out to you before, verse 8 confounds the way you've handled it.

1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The pronouns "we" and "us" placed the apostle John among those who could not say they were without sin. John, was just as unable to claim this as his readers were. The verb "have" is in the present progressive tense, which means that, if John or any of his readers had said that they were ever without sin, they would have been self-deceived and God's truth would not have been in them. And so, another way of putting verse 8 would be as follows:

"Neither I, nor any of you, can say that, in the present moment, "I am without sin"; for to do so would be to reveal that we are self-deceived and devoid of the truth."

This is you, Hopeful 2. You have busily attempted to sow the lie of your present sinlessness across this website, hoping, I assume, to provoke others to take up your self-deception and become those in whom no truth dwells, as you are. That this fact does not powerfully prick your conscience and bring you sharply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit is a testament to the terrible effects of false doctrine and the hardness-producing rebellion toward God's truth that underlies it.

 

[Tenchi]

What it means, particularly when it comes to pornography, is to FLEE from this battle and notget engaged in it, rather than mustering all your willpower and pray to God for more to fight it.

This is part of how to deal with porn, yes.

Romans 13:12-14
12 ...let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

2 Timothy 2:22
22 Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

The addict must not put himself in the path of temptation to indulge his addiction. But this is not really the key to being fully free of an addiction to porn. As I said in post #13:

"...it turns out that the way of escape from sin is found in escape into fellowship with one's holy Maker."

God is Himself the "way of escape" from any and all sin. As the Christian enters ever more deeply into daily fellowship with Him, sinful living increasingly diminishes. This is because, in fellowship with God, all that He is fills the born-again believer which inevitably transforms their desires, thinking and conduct so that it conforms more and more to the "image of Christ" (Romans 8:29).

I have discipled many Christian men who tried to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lust," who appeared to "flee youthful lusts," by putting themselves in accountability groups, and giving access and control over their internet activity to someone else, and placing their p.c. where the screen could be readily observed by others, and making a "covenant with their eyes," etc. But every one of them found "work arounds," secretly establishing new ways to indulge their addiction.

Why? Because God's "way of escape" has to do with a changed heart, not altered external circumstances; it has to do with learning to deeply enjoy life with Him such that one's enjoyment of Him overtakes everything else, becoming the new, holy "addiction" one pursues above and before all else. This is, actually, the life for which each of us was made.

For anyone who still watches porn regularly, ask yourself whether you enjoy watching it or regret watching it afterwards, whether this is worth your precious free time and disposable income or a total waste of it, whether this is an escape from reality you think it is or a shackle that locks you in a shame-guilt-relief cycle. Salvation is not forced, it must be consensual, you can't be healed unless you WANT to be healed.

The many men I've discipled through a battle with porn, described a "two minds" state-of-affairs, much like what the apostle Paul described of himself in Romans 7:15-20. Mere guiltiness after the fact was not enough to press these fellows out of their sin. And the longer they indulged in sin contrary to their conscience and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the more blunted their conscience became and the more silent the Holy Spirit grew, grieved and eventually quenched by their persistence in their addiction to porn (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). As this situation developed, concerns about the rationality and "good sense" of avoiding porn dissolved within them, leaving only an obsessive craving for more visual sexual filth. So far had these men ventured into sin that they did not want to be "healed" of their sin; they were so damaged by their addiction to porn that they had no desire to give up their addiction and no desire to turn to God.

It was only the pain and damage of their addiction - the corruption and death-dealing effects of their sin (Galatians 6:7-8; Romans 6:23; James 1:14-16) - that prompted them to do something about it. Only once the hurt and harm of their sin had outstripped the gratification of satisfying their addiction were they motivated to seek out God's "way of escape." But what "scars" and "limps" they bore ever after!

Yes, we ought to be led by the Spirit, I'm not gonna concur or contest that, I'm just telling you that don't deceive yourself. Being led by the spirit is contrary to being like by the flesh. When you're led by the flesh, you'll lust for a woman in your heart, certain section in your brain will light up, your heart rate spikes, and blood may rush into your manhood, you'll feel it. Despite whatever conviction and discipline you think you have, your body is HONEST, it will react to the sight on its own, and that's a sign of carnal thinking, a lack of spiritual maturity.

God has made us sexual beings. A manly response to an attractive female, then, is not an evil thing. But God intends that our sexuality be under His direct, constant control, just as all regions of our lives are to be. When we are under His constant control, our normal, God-given sexual response to a beautiful woman does not ever stray into sin. It cannot, since God is directing it. Only when we wrest from the Holy Spirit control of the "steering wheel" of our heart do we "drive off" into sin.

How do you know if you're really led by the spirit? See a woman as a human being made in the image of God equal to you, look her in the eye instead of ogling anywhere below her neck, and listen to her with your focus on her speech if she's talking.

You don't have much experience dealing with men in regards to the sexual area, do you? This sort of psychological stuff doesn't work - especially with guys already addicted to porn. It's dealing with the surface of things, not the heart. Most of the men I've dealt with who had a porn addiction had no idea their eyes were scanning women up and down and that their whole manner when encountering women was leering and lascivious. They were quite unaware of how much their addiction had shaped their interactions with women in such repugnant ways. In any case, the man who looks away from a beautiful woman can still - and often does - imagine evil, lustful things about her in his heart. And so, it is the heart, the inner man, God says must change if freedom from sin is to be truly obtained. And only He can make the proper changes to that inner person, which He does only as the Christian man is walking with Him in loving submission and faith.

We live in an evil society of lust, women are often stripped of their humanity, their bodies commonly sexualized and objectified, be sober-minded of this sad reality and don't join the crowd. Treat women with respect and compassion as Christ treated various wayward women during his ministry, take any naughty thoughts into captivity, banish all your fleshly desires, and act stoically and professionally, be cool, calm and collected, don't either fawn over them like a simp or despise them like a misogynist. This graphic description may enrage the OP, but I don't care. If God's word really means anything to you, test it and follow it, don't build your house on shifting sand.

This advice doesn't "enrage" me; it simply saddens me. What you've written here is so often the advice ungodly Christian men offer to each other precisely because they don't know what it is to walk properly with God in loving, faithful submission to Him throughout each day. This is, essentially, a fleshly method of trying to achieve a godly end. It doesn't - it cannot - bring any man into the life for which God made them but will actually propel them away from Him into a carnal counterfeit of "Christian" living. And so it is in the NT that nowhere is any of the stuff you've described in the quotation above offered as God's "way of escape" from the tyranny of sin.

Please re-read the first thirteen posts of this thread. "Empty your cup" first before you do; it's far too full of you and virtually empty of God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Please re-read the first thirteen posts of this thread. "Empty your cup" first before you do; it's far too full of you and virtually empty of God.

If I were "full of me" I'd be backsliding. I'm here and I know what I'm talking about, nobody has delivered me from those false idols but God, with his wonder working power. Be sad if you like, I rejoice over God's grace, for He has set me free. I'm only emptying myself of you, who contradicts his own warning about the "desires of the flesh" by teaching that "God has made us sexual beings". Well how can you be a "sexual being" without "desires of the flesh"? A "sexual being" doesn't belong to God's kingdom, 'cause we'll all be made new, from corruptible to incorruptible, and there'll be no sex in resurrection (Matt. 22:30). As long as you phrase your advice by calling it a "battle", you're still fighting sexual immorality instead of fleeing from it, and you don't seem to understand what porn really is, why it's evil and how it defiles us, you're just reacting to it like all those Christian teachers you disparaged, and those teacher at least offered some practical tips instead of being self-righteous. Tell you what, those poor men you claim you have counseled still lust for their Jezebels in their heart, but not me. Even if I think of a woman, I only wonder about her story, personality, relationships, etc. as an OUTSIDER, I myself is totally out of the picture, I have zero desire to possess anybody as a "sexual being“.

 

[Tenchi]

If I were "full of me" I'd be backsliding.

One of the terrible consequences of being backslidden is that those who are often have no idea that they are. This is especially the case when, all around, the backslidden person sees only other backslidden people. In any case, a man full of himself can be very religious, very pious, very careful of the rules, as the Pharisees were. But their hearts were far from God, as Jesus pointed out. So, too, the heart of a pious, religious man of today who thinks to accomplish a godly end by means of his own human powers.

Be sad if you like, I rejoice over God's grace, for He has set me free.

Has he? I don't think this is the case, from what you've written. You don't understand God's "way of escape," as it's laid out in Scripture, at all, it appears.

I'm only emptying myself of you, who contradicts his own warning about the "desires of the flesh" by teaching that "God has made us sexual beings".

God hasn't made us sexual beings? Is God not our Creator, then? From what other source do our sexual organs, hormones and interest derive? It was God who said to Adam "be fruitful and multiply." It was God who shaped Adam from the dust of the earth into a being who could do so.

Well how can you be a "sexual being" without "desires of the flesh"?

??? The desires of the flesh are not intrinsically evil. When they are under God's control, subordinated to His will and way, as they're supposed to be, they are entirely right and good. God made us capable of, and wanting to, eat food, and rest, and procreate, and enjoy beautiful vistas, and splash about in the ocean, and delight in music, art and good stories. Only when we partake in these things out from under God's control do these desires of the flesh grow inordinate and evil.

A "sexual being" doesn't belong to God's kingdom, 'cause we'll all be made new, from corruptible to incorruptible, and there'll be no sex in resurrection (Matt. 22:30).

An infant is weak physically, vulnerable and dependent, unable to communicate except in the most primitive manner, unable to control his/her bowels or bladder, entirely occupied with him/herself. Is the infant, then, a wicked creature, because of its immaturity to be despised and avoided? Of course not. The baby is in a continuum of growth and change and will, in due time, grow strong physically, able to speak and feed him/herself, and do all the basic things an adult, mature human being can do. No reasonable person, then, looks upon an infant and thinks that, because it will in the future be more than it is at present, it is an evil thing.

And so, the fact that one day our "corruptible" physical bodies, susceptible to disease and injury and moving inevitably to death, will one day be "incorruptible" and forever impervious to these things does not mean our bodies are therefore presently evil. Our temporal, physical forms are made fit for a temporal, physical existence by God and are, as such, just as they ought to be, sexual impulses and all. When we move on to another supernatural, eternal existence, our bodies will be made by God fit for that existence. But this change to our bodies doesn't indicate that the first "corruptible" temporal condition of our bodies is intrinsically evil, only, like the infant yet to grow into adulthood, in a weaker, less durable, less advanced condition.

As long as you phrase your advice by calling it a "battle", you're still fighting sexual immorality instead of fleeing from it, and you don't seem to understand what porn really is, why it's evil and how it defiles us, you're just reacting to it like all those Christian teachers you disparaged, and those teacher at least offered some practical tips instead of being self-righteous.

There is no fleeing your natural, God-given, sexual drive, the temptation of the devil, and the pull of the sin-nature you've inherited from Adam. You can avoid places where temptation might be magnified, but you cannot avoid these other things. So, the "battle" is very real and unavoidable - but it can be won for you by the Holy Spirit as you walk in loving, faithful submission to Him.

The "way of escape" I've described in the first several posts to this thread is far more practical than anything you've offered. God's "way of escape" is so because it is His way, the way of the One who knows better than us all how best to deal with sin. That you deny this simply exposes the depth of your spiritual understanding and so, the character of your walk with God.

I'm not being self-righteous, by the way, but simply stating what God's word says, faithfully and directly. My hope, my motivation, is to aid my fellow siblings in Christ to a deeper, fuller enjoyment of their holy Maker and all the wonderful things that result from fellowship with Him. But, we live in a time when the idea that some believers might be more mature, more knowledgeable, more seasoned in the faith, than others, enjoying better, richer communion with God than other believers is abhorrent. No, we must all, no matter how long we've walked with God, admit to being no farther along with Him than anyone else. The idea, I suppose, is to make the spiritually weaker, immature and ignorant believer feel better about their condition, but the result of doing so is a widespread belief in the Church that spiritual growth, real transformation by the Spirit, doesn't actually ever happen. And so, many Christians have grown very confident and complacent in their spiritual immaturity, thinking that real, concrete change at their core is impossible, and that those who claim they've had such a change are just "self righteous."

In any event, you can certainly spurn what I've shown you, stubbornly holding to your ideas about Christian living. The only one who loses out when you do is you. Okay. If that's fine with you, so be it. - *Shrugs* - I'm only a messenger, responsible solely for delivering the truth faithfully and clearly and living in it myself. I have no responsibility for what anyone else does with the truth.

Tell you what, those poor men you claim you have counseled still lust for their Jezebels in their heart, but not me.

Uh huh. I've heard this sort of thing before - usually from those guys most badly caught in porn. Addicts often deny they've an addiction, you see. You may, though, be as you claim to be. I hope so. But neither God's word, nor personal experience incline me to think that you are.

I have zero desire to possess anybody as a "sexual being“.

Uh huh.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Random thought
A Christian…I think his name is Dan Brown..blames a lot of the problems in modern heterosexuality on…

The gays lol

But seriously it’s his theory about growing narcissism in America overlapping with affirming the gays and then things that have always been a part of gay life…hook up culture open relationships heavy reliance on porn…

Becoming a part of the new normal for heterosexual people.

I dunno I’m kinda inclined to think that it’s more social and economic…

Not so much the gay ing of America lol .


I do kinda think that the increasing costs of having and raising children and falling marriage rates has resulted in more heterosexual relationships being focused on looks personal fulfillment and that kind of thing…

And that is less because of the gays and more because of sex for sex’s sake vs sex that could potentially lead to a new life.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Sorry it’s Michael brown.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

One of the terrible consequences of being backslidden is that those who are often have no idea that they are. This is especially the case when, all around, the backslidden person sees only other backslidden people. In any case, a man full of himself can be very religious, very pious, very careful of the rules, as the Pharisees were. But their hearts were far from God, as Jesus pointed out. So, too, the heart of a pious, religious man of today who thinks to accomplish a godly end by means of his own human powers.

Hmm, says you who's been selling "walk in spirit" and "escape to God" like snake oil, you who's boasting of your own "submission to God" and "Christian living" as though everybody else is a pharisee and your name alone is written in the Book of Life, and you are insinuating me as a "pious pharisee"?

Has he? I don't think this is the case, from what you've written. You don't understand God's "way of escape," as it's laid out in Scripture, at all, it appears.

You don't know me at all, I offered my advice from personal experience, I know for a fact that porn - or junk food, gaming, alcohol, social media, etc. for that matter - has no power over me, God has opened my eyes to see the great wonders and spectacles he has prepared for me. Believe it or not, I feel repelled by today's godless secular culture as much as you do, just from a different persepctive.

God hasn't made us sexual beings? Is God not our Creator, then? From what other source do our sexual organs, hormones and interest derive? It was God who said to Adam "be fruitful and multiply." It was God who shaped Adam from the dust of the earth into a being who could do so.

Did God create his only begotten son a "sexual being"? Was any of the twelve discples a "sexual being"? Was apostle Paul a "sexual being"? All were holy, CELIBATE men who've devoted their whole life to God, even if Peter or Paul might have married, they left their marriage life behind to serve God, the "sexual being" is crucified on the cross, they lived as new beings with no sexual desires for women - or men, that's the role models for me to follow.

??? The desires of the flesh are not intrinsically evil. When they are under God's control, subordinated to His will and way, as they're supposed to be, they are entirely right and good. God made us capable of, and wanting to, eat food, and rest, and procreate, and enjoy beautiful vistas, and splash about in the ocean, and delight in music, art and good stories. Only when we partake in these things out from under God's control do these desires of the flesh grow inordinate and evil.

Other physiological needs of the body are not evil, of course, but sexual desire is, because it hurts and degrades women from play things and breeding stocks. Whatever God had originally designed sexuality to be, it had been permanently distorted since the sexual revolution, more than two generations of women had been ruined under the licentious male gaze fueled by "sexual desire". Not only are women objectified by men, they even objectify themselves out of insecurity. So instead of partaking in "these things" with caution by pretending it's "under God's control", I'd rather not participate at all. My Father in heaven knows my genuine, rational needs.

An infant is weak physically, vulnerable and dependent, unable to communicate except in the most primitive manner, unable to control his/her bowels or bladder, entirely occupied with him/herself. Is the infant, then, a wicked creature, because of its immaturity to be despised and avoided? Of course not. The baby is in a continuum of growth and change and will, in due time, grow strong physically, able to speak and feed him/herself, and do all the basic things an adult, mature human being can do. No reasonable person, then, looks upon an infant and thinks that, because it will in the future be more than it is at present, it is an evil thing.

And so, the fact that one day our "corruptible" physical bodies, susceptible to disease and injury and moving inevitably to death, will one day be "incorruptible" and forever impervious to these things does not mean our bodies are therefore presently evil. Our temporal, physical forms are made fit for a temporal, physical existence by God and are, as such, just as they ought to be, sexual impulses and all. When we move on to another supernatural, eternal existence, our bodies will be made by God fit for that existence. But this change to our bodies doesn't indicate that the first "corruptible" temporal condition of our bodies is intrinsically evil, only, like the infant yet to grow into adulthood, in a weaker, less durable, less advanced condition.

So you're like Hopeful 2 who's in opposition to the Scriptural teaching of original sin, then? I'm not into Gnosticism which teaches that the body is intrinsically evil either, but we're banished from the Garden of Eden into the wilderness of sins, only by the blood of Jesus could the sins of the world be paid and us delivered. Of course, sexual impulse is natural, but it's also a distraction. Even in this temporal, physical existence we're meant to serve God and accomplish his plans for us, not to compete for mating rights like animals. Again, none of the twelve disciples or apostle Paul had any biological children, and yet they had been more fruitful than any of their forefathers could ever imagine.

 

[Hopeful 2]

As I've pointed out to you before, verse 8 confounds the way you've handled it.
1 John 1:8
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
The pronouns "we" and "us" placed the apostle John among those who could not say they were without sin.

Too bad you missed the "IF".
Some of 1 John 1 addresses those who walk in God, in Whom is no sin.
Some of 1 John 1 addresses those who walk in sin.
Can you figure out which verses apply to each ?

John, was just as unable to claim this as his readers were. The verb "have" is in the present progressive tense, which means that, if John or any of his readers had said that they were ever without sin, they would have been self-deceived and God's truth would not have been in them. And so, another way of putting verse 8 would be as follows:

Were your evaluation correct, then nobody walks in God...the light.

"Neither I, nor any of you, can say that, in the present moment, "I am without sin"; for to do so would be to reveal that we are self-deceived and devoid of the truth."

Thank God some do walk in the light-God, in Whom is no sin. (v7)
Thank God some can say they know God. (v7)
Thank God some can say they have fellowship with God. (v7)
1 John 2:3-6 further delineates between those who walk in in darkness and those walking in the light with..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
Does that sound like folks who walk in darkness ?
No, but it does sound like those walking in the light.

This is you, Hopeful 2. You have busily attempted to sow the lie of your present sinlessness across this website, hoping, I assume, to provoke others to take up your self-deception and become those in whom no truth dwells, as you are. That this fact does not powerfully prick your conscience and bring you sharply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit is a testament to the terrible effects of false doctrine and the hardness-producing rebellion toward God's truth that underlies it.

The temptation to leave my walk in God-the light probably won't end until my vessel dies.
But, by the grace of God, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the word of God, I am fully prepared to continue on in God-the light
If I can provoke others to walk in God-the light, some of my works will survive the fire.
Will those walking in the darkness-sin survive ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There is no fleeing your natural, God-given, sexual drive, the temptation of the devil, and the pull of the sin-nature you've inherited from Adam. You can avoid places where temptation might be magnified, but you cannot avoid these other things. So, the "battle" is very real and unavoidable - but it can be won for you by the Holy Spirit as you walk in loving, faithful submission to Him.

Then how are the final 144,000 saints from the twelve tribes of Israel all virgins, as in "not defiled by women"? How do they get to avoid these things? I'm not gonna lie and pretend to be "pious", man, I've had sexual desires, I've been tempted by the devil, but it had all subsided, I'm no longer bothered by any of those, and I know that for a fact as none of those psysiological signs of arousal I mentioned are showing. Sex is but an illusion, any "drive" towards it is futile.

It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless. (Rev. 14:4-5)

In any event, you can certainly spurn what I've shown you, stubbornly holding to your ideas about Christian living. The only one who loses out when you do is you. Okay. If that's fine with you, so be it. - *Shrugs* - I'm only a messenger, responsible solely for delivering the truth faithfully and clearly and living in it myself. I have no responsibility for what anyone else does with the truth.

I'm a messenger too, and I've made my message loud and clear - "walk by faith, not by sight; be absent from the body and present with the lord." Only can a man truly be free from porn when he's no longer bound by any sexual desire. I can still admire a woman as a beautiful creature as Adam admired Eve when he woke up, connect with her emotionally, share her joy and suffering, but always keep boundaries and never get involved with her intimately. Even if I am to die alone, I will die in peace and satisfaction, for I have tasted the freedom and goodness from God.

Uh huh. I've heard this sort of thing before - usually from those guys most badly caught in porn. Addicts often deny they've an addiction, you see. You may, though, be as you claim to be. I hope so. But neither God's word, nor personal experience incline me to think that you are.

I don't deny anything, I know with absolute certainty that porn is an abomination, especially the kinky, violent modern ones. More importantly, it's more about what I've been missing out beyond porn than porn itself. I'm honest about my liberation from porn.

 

[Hidden In Him]

But seriously it’s his theory about growing narcissism in America

I could see that. The Christian version of love actually focuses on the other. The world's version has increasingly been corrupted and twisted over into... well, the Satanist mentality, that it is all about the self and self-gratification. When you buy into that, over time it just tends to make you a dislikable human being who will repel people rather than draw them to you, so your relationships fail, and then you're reduced to "relationships" with people who aren't even real anymore.

Granted, that may not be the only way to get there, but narcissists usually end up with no one to love them but themselves, so I would think the theory has some merit to it.

 

[Tenchi]

Hmm, says you who's been selling "walk in spirit" and "escape to God" like snake oil, you who's boasting of your own "submission to God" and "Christian living" as though everybody else is a pharisee and your name alone is written in the Book of Life, and you are insinuating me as a "pious pharisee"?

Selling "walking in the Spirit"? No, I've just pointed out what the apostle Paul taught was the necessary means of "not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh."

Galatians 5:16-17
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

How is it "selling" to draw attention to the plain and vital teaching of the apostle Paul, the second greatest contributor to the New Testament? And how is his teaching "snake oil"? That's a pretty disparaging characterization of his divinely-inspired writing.

I've never boasted of anything. This is your speculation on, your imagined story about, my attitude. It's wrong, being imagined and reflective only of what's going on in you rather than in me.

Also, I don't think "everybody else is a Pharisee." Not at all. There are, though, some folk in the Church who very much are. There always has been, I think. Why should observing this bother you if you aren't one of these pharisaical folk? It doesn't bother me that you've called me one who "sells snake oil," and who is boastful of my spiritual living because I know that God knows its not true. And so long as He knows what the truth is, it doesn't matter to me what others might imagine is true.

I offered my advice from personal experience, I know for a fact that porn - or junk food, gaming, alcohol, social media, etc. for that matter - has no power over me, God has opened my eyes to see the great wonders and spectacles he has prepared for me. Believe it or not, I feel repelled by today's godless secular culture as much as you do, just from a different persepctive.

My personal experience (or yours) has value spiritually only insofar as that experience bears out the truth of God's word and moves more fully into His will in my life. God has a very particular end in mind in the changes He makes in our lives. When we set about to make our own changes for God, that end He has in mind is actually hindered because we can't ever get a godly result from the efforts of our fleshly selves (Galatians 6:7-8; Romans 8:5-8). Only God can make us godly.

I know of atheists who've lost weight, repaired bad marriages, stopped smoking or drinking, gone to foreign countries to serve the less fortunate in charitable ways, and so on. Their self/life-improvements had nothing to do with God, however, and so did not produce the ends for which God makes His changes in His children. These sorts of positive life-alterations, then, aren't, in-and-of themselves, God's end goal in the lives of His children. The Christian who holds up such shifts in their living as proof of good spiritual living, then, has not necessarily shown evidence of godly change at all.

So, I'm glad to know you aren't afflicted with the temptations that typically afflict everyone else, but you haven't properly anchored your temptation-free condition to God, to His "way of escape" laid out in His word, or to what it is He's ultimately working toward in your life. And so, I can't give your experience any weight spiritually, positive though your self-derived life-changes may be. Only as your "perspective," and mine, conform to God's Truth, to His will and way in Scripture, are our "perspective" spiritually valuable/useful.

Did God create his only begotten son a "sexual being"?

Yes. He was fully Man, as well as fully God and so:

Hebrews 4:14-15

14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Was any of the twelve discples a "sexual being"?

Yes.

Matthew 8:14
14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. (Also: Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38)

If Peter had a mother-in-law, he had a wife.

Was apostle Paul a "sexual being"?

He didn't ever say he wasn't a "sexual being." And so, it's reasonable to assume he had all the common features of a man, including sexual organs. Paul was celibate, as you've noted, but refraining from sex doesn't erase the natural sexuality of one's biological makeup.

All were holy, CELIBATE men who've devoted their whole life to God, even if Peter or Paul might have married, they left their marriage life behind to serve God,

This isn't stated anywhere in Scripture and, in fact, is opposed by the words of the apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:4-5
4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Don't think I've forgotten how you berated me last time for bringing up sexuality, and now you're lecturing on me about sex? What hypocrisy.

? I challenged your sexualizing of the Christian's heavenly, spiritual experience of God. You're describing that experience in terms of an orgasm absolutely deserved to be "berated." It was obscene and blasphemous. There is, however, nothing at all wrong with recognizing that God made us all sexual beings and that our sexuality (and our entire lives) placed under His control results in a proper, even godly, expression of the sexuality He has created. Acknowledging this isn't the least hypocritical; it's quite biblical, actually.

Other physiological needs of the body are not evil, of course, but sexual desire is, because it hurts and degrades women from play things and breeding stocks.

? Some women may be abused sexually in the way you describe, but certainly not all. In our marriage, my wife is neither degraded sexually as a plaything, nor made "breeding stock." Together, we both enjoy the sexuality given to us by God.

Some people grossly abuse their food-intake, growing obese and then afflicted by various resulting physical ailments. Is eating, then, an evil thing? If I follow your logic about the abuse of sex, this is the conclusion I'd have to come to. But God has made us food-eating creatures, just as He's made us sexual creatures, and both things, properly under His control, are very good things.

Whatever God had originally designed sexuality to be, it had been permanently distorted since the sexual revolution,

For some people, perhaps, but not for all. See above.

So instead of partaking in "these things" with caution by pretending it's "under God's control", I'd rather not participate at all. My Father in heaven knows my genuine, rational needs.

??? "Pretending"? I get that we all tend to see the world through the lenses of our personality, preferences and personal experiences, but being under God's control - to those who actually are - is not pretense, but astonishing reality. That you describe this state as mere "pretending" says more about you and your walk with God than about those you are attempting to deride.

So you're like Hopeful 2 who's in opposition to the Scriptural teaching of original sin, then?

That depends on what you mean by the "teaching of original sin."

Of course, sexual impulse is natural, but it's also a distraction. Even in this temporal, physical existence we're meant to serve God and accomplish his plans for us, not to compete for mating rights like animals

This is a false dichotomy - one of several you've employed in our discussions in various threads. The options aren't only "serve God" or "compete for mating rights like animals." There is also the option of walking with God in loving, faithful submission to Him and, under the control of His Spirit, enjoying all the good things He's given to us, including our sexuality, while serving Him. I do this every day. So do many other believers that I know.

Oh really? Then how are the final 144,000 saints from the twelve tribes of Israel all virgins, as in "not defiled by women"? How do they get to avoid these things?

What do these saints have to do with our present-day, mundane living?

Revelation 14:1-5
1 Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps,
3 and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.
4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb,
5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.

It is the very unusual-ness of these people that distinguish them from everyone else. Why, then, would you offer them as representative of all those not of their number? And, anyway, nothing this passage describes of the 144,000 indicates they didn't have to wrestle with the inescapable and natural, human sexual impulse, or the temptations of the devil, or the Adamic sin-nature, as the rest of us do.

I'm not gonna lie and pretend to be "pious", man, I've had sexual desires, I've been tempted by the devil, but it had all subsided, I'm no longer bothered by any of those, and I know that for a fact as none of those psysiological signs of arousal I mentioned are showing. Sex is but an illusion, any "drive" towards it is futile.

Achieving this state is not necessarily indicative of anything godly. I've encountered Buddhists, Hindus and Daoists who've said similar things.

I'm a messenger too, and I've made my message loud and clear - "walk by faith, not by sight; be absent from the body and present with the lord."

This isn't God's "way of escape" which is the original subject of this thread.

Only can a man truly be free from porn when he's no longer bound by any sexual desire.

Not so. I'm not bound in a porn addiction and I enjoy a wonderful sex-life with my wife. My God-controlled sexual desire for my wife actually helps propel me away from porn.

I don't deny anything, I know with absolute certainty that porn is an abomination, especially the kinky, violent modern ones.

Okay... This isn't a distinction I think God bothers to make. He hates it all.

I'm not a self-righteous, condescenting, conceited hypocrite like you who condemns my mention of sexuality and boasts of your own "sexual being".

You aren't going to convince anyone of your spiritual advancement by this sort of ugly denigration of another. Thankfully, I stand or fall before God, not you, who knows me inside and out. Before Him, I'm confident that I'm walking well, submitted to Him and serving His will as He enables me to do. This is all that matters to me. How about you?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hmm, says you who's been selling "walk in spirit" and "escape to God" like snake oil, you who's boasting of your own "submission to God" and "Christian living" as though everybody else is a pharisee and your name alone is written in the Book of Life

I don't know you well, no. But I do know something of you, in the broad strokes, from what you've written. Your quickness to ad hominem, for example, says a lot about who's in charge of your mind and heart. Your poor handling of God's word also reveals something of what your walk with God must be like.

Moderator's Warning:

Post with a little more kindness, please. The discussion would be good were it not for these personal attacks, and we don't want them leading to temporary site bans just to see to it that cooler heads can prevail.

Take this seriously so that it doesn't happen.
Staff