Antithetical Targets

There are times when you are having a discussion, and you suddenly realize that you and your interlocutor are talking about two different things. Take Football and Football, for example… American vs Brit. But there are other times when you are talking about the same thing, mostly, but you are coming at it with such different objectives that you might as well be talking about two different things. Take a woman trying to save her marriage, and a woman trying to set herself up with evidence for her divorce, for example. Both might be talking about their husbands, with opposite goals.

When discussing monasticism and the Scripture, the Protestant and the Catholic seem to have, if my discussion with Incognito is any example, very different goals. Very different targets. Indeed, perhaps even antithetical targets. He has posted a new post in our discussion, and the more I read it, the more I realized that, perhaps, we are trying to do two very different things.

The Target

So our principal difference seems to be this: I am going to Scripture to see what I should do and what I should teach… and he is going to it to find out what he should avoid. I base my argument on the idea that if God says something again and again, in law, in gospel, in examples… then I would do well to follow it. He seems to base his argument on the idea that unless God specifically forbids something in all situations, we are free to do it.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that Scripture clearly forbids the idea of monasticism. But we are not arguing from the same foundation. He does not see it as his goal to show us how Scripture states that there should be monastics, there should be a perpetual vow of ‘celibacy’, and here are the people that Scripture says should be involved. He seems content to merely refute anything that too dramatically looks like a command, then go on with that out of the way.

Voluminous Scripture

He almost seems to complain about how much Scripture I post, and then, when he posts Scripture himself, he doesn’t post it. He just puts down the reference. (And, full confession, I do not think that his audience has all of those Scriptures memorized. It is a kind of fun game with two Bible Scholars to ask someone’s opinion about a reference and see if they have to look it up… but I don’t think that is the game he is playing.)

So while I am trying to show that Scripture again and again… and again and again… speaks of marriage as normative, as the way God blesses the righteous and Godly man, as the method God uses to advance His kingdom, as commanded particularly in the light of sexual temptation… that all falls on deaf ears. He does not see the Godly man as needing to stand there, see the whole scope of Scripture, and say, “What would God have me do?” He seems to feel it is enough to say, “Well, that’s not enough evidence to convince me not to do what I want to do.”

And it seems I will wait in vain for him ever to say, “Now, we clearly see monasticism taught in I Hesitations 5:4. We see God blessing the monastic in I Theronines 8:2. God clearly used the Monastery on the Hill in defeating the Midianites and Ninevites when they attacked Israel in IV Kings 11:3.”¹ What I call strange fire and a lack of Biblical evidence he merely says is ‘not forbidden’.

Any Exception is Every Exception

Now, he gets a little confused about exactly how many exceptions I list to the command to marriage.² But that doesn’t matter because, in the end, he seems to claim that any exception means that everything is an exception. He writes:

Celibacy is only unbiblical if Scripture says God commands every individual to marry, and it simply doesn’t.

…and I don’t know how else to read that. It is a nonsensical statement read that way, but I can’t figure out how else to read it! “Killing is only unBiblical if God never commands anyone to kill, and He simply doesn’t.” “Marrying your sister in law is only unBiblical if God never commands anyone to marry their sister in law, and He simply doesn’t.” ³

The concept is simply nonsense. The fact that there exists a dozen or so clearly stated Biblical exceptions to marriage does not in any way imply that, therefore, no one is commanded to marry. I used to routinely walk through the door in the hospital that says ‘Do not Enter’… because I was an exception. Didn’t mean that just anyone should walk through! Marriage is commanded, and normative, and a method of His blessings. The Godly man needs to not merely point at the presence of exceptions, but must clearly see that they apply to him.

The Command of Blessings

He took exception to my including of various blessings in my ‘Commands and Blessings’ post, and that is my fault. I gave a very quick introduction to why I added the blessings, but it obviously wasn’t enough for my audience. So let me be more clear:

1. All of Scripture is intended for our instruction

2. This includes the blessings of Scripture

3. So when God says, “This is the way that God blesses the righteous man” we should take that blessing as instruction for us.

4. So, given the issue of exceptions, a blessing is a soft form of a command. “Be like this” is the implication.

Our Current Age

Now, I am going to fully confess something: I have (sort of) strayed from the thesis of this discussion. I have brought forth (several times) the issue of ‘our current age’. I have pointed out how many issues in our current age would lead the Godly man to understand that, even if monasticism is allowed, this is the worst time to be doing it! That what we need is thousands and millions of Godly men marrying, having lots of sex, having lots of children, and raising Godly families.

But… I am going to at least partially retract my confession. What I have actually done is not laid out the Biblical foundation for this method of analysis. So… here goes…

Let me start by bringing forward a set of passages that Incognito himself dealt with. He seemed to file it under ‘contradictory exception,’⁴ but it is a wonderful example of how we, as Christians, need to look at the times. God speaking specifically and individually to Jeremiah, at one point in his ministry, tells him not to marry and not to have children. Because God says, those children will die. They, and their mothers and fathers. Literally, if you marry and she gets pregnant, you are signing your own death sentence.

Then, later in the book, God tells Jeremiah to issue a command to all Israel, telling them to take wives, take wives for their sons, give their daughters to husbands, and have children. When the people are already carried away, and no longer under the curse of death.

So, during a time when God has said he will kill every mother, father, and child… He tells Jeremiah not to marry. In a time when they are carried away, and must await their return, he tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Practically the exact same exception Paul lists in I Corinthians Seven.

And I ask the Godly man to look out at our world today and ask himself, “What is needed today? Do we need men emasculating themselves⁵ in an age which can’t tell male from female? Do we need yet another barren womb in a day of demographic death? Yet another fruitless and sexless young man in an age of Sodomy and transgenderism? One less Godly marriage and fruitful marriage in an age of divorce, abortion, sexless marriages…?

God forbid.

Go Ahead, Make my Day

Luke 18:2-5

Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

This difference in our goals may be the reason, or one of the reasons, why we seem to be having a very different emotional reaction to this letter exchange. Every time he comments, or posts, I get excited: here is another opportunity for me to promote God’s design of marriage, sex, children, and Godly family raising. Whereas he seems to have tired of the discussion almost from the first post.

I take every opportunity in every post and every comment to make my case, to lay out how God loves the covenant of marriage, and hates the false vows of ‘celibacy’. When he disagrees with something I said, I see it as an opportunity to say it again, to say it in a new way, to put it in a new light. Whereas he seems shy of making his case, let alone making it again.

I don’t know Catholic hymnody at all, but a lot of the protestant hymns I grew up with are basically of the form, “What? I get to praise God again! I get to tell of His wonderful works again! I get to praise His law, His gospel, His actions in history again?!! Praise the LORD!!!”

The Discussion So Far

• Incogito wrote a note on Substack claiming that monks were incredibly Biblical… and I disagreed. And so we agreed to do a letter exchange.

• I wrote a post (I wrote it after his first post) dealing with definitions, the obvious first step in any debate.

• He wrote a post claiming that celibacy and monasticism are Biblical

• I wrote a post speaking about what is eternal, and what is ephemeral, in I Corinthians 7. Or, more specifically, what what local to them, and what is general to all Christians.

• He wrote a post speaking about ‘eunuchs for the kingdom’.

• I wrote a post about the nature of the gift that Paul speaks about I Corinthians Seven.

• I wrote a post listing the examples of Godly men in Scripture who took vows of celibacy (just kidding), married, had kids, etc.

• I wrote a post listing the Biblical Commands to marriage, sex, and children.

• I wrote a post about calling the Fire Department: I.e., how marriage is commanded in the light of the burning of sexual temptation.

• I wrote a post asking who defines marriage

• He wrote a post riposting my arguments

• We also have had various discussions in comment threads

The Case Summary

Psalm 128

A Song of degrees.

Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that

walketh in his ways.

For

thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands:

happy shalt thou be, and

it shall be well with thee.

Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house:

thy children like olive plants round about thy table.

Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD.

The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and

thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. Yea,

thou shalt see thy children’s children, and

peace upon Israel.

For those who haven’t been following the debate, here is a partial list of the problem I have with monks. Which, being translated, is, “Here are some of the ways in which I think that monks are anti-Biblical.”. Thus, here are some ways in which I see the Scripture as saying that the monk or nun, and their allies and supporters, are the enemies of marriage and of God:

• They don’t marry

• They don’t have sex

• They don’t have children

• They don’t raise a Godly family

• They don’t serve as an example for other young men and women

• They don’t have Godly grandchildren and future generations

• These things are especially problematic in today’s age, where

  • We have so few Christians marrying

  • They are marrying late

  • They are not having children (let alone a full quiver)

  • They are not raising Godly families

  • Sodomy

  • Transgender

  • Abortion

• As well, I believe that they withdraw from ‘the world’ at a time when we need the maximum number of Godly men engaged with the world.

• And they do not remain unmarried in accordance with their strength and gifting from God, they take a blasphemous and disobedient permanent vow of unmarriage!

• And they pretend it is a ‘vow of celibacy’, thus claiming for themselves something only God can know.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

1. For the truly uninitiated, none of these are actual Scriptures.

2. Among other things, I list physical eunuchs, and anyone who is in a position where there is such persecution that it would be foolish. While I believe that it is never proper to make a lifelong vow of unmarriage, I list 144,001 examples of Godly people who died as virgins.

3. The law in question would be the levirate law, which requires this marriage, which is normally forbidden.

4. Which it isn’t. It is basically the same exception that Paul speaks of in I Corinthians Seven.

5. For those who may think that this language is a bit over the top, it comes from the defense of monks using Christ’s words, “There are some eunuchs…”. The word ‘eunuch’ literally means an emasculated man… a physically emasculated man.