All single persons may take heart in knowing that the totality of their life circumstances are not a mistake on God’s part, but a divinely orchestrated “gift” of sorts, and may thusly be embraced with contentment no matter what those circumstances might be (Phil 4:11–12). This general notion of a “gift” is one that gives hope and moral direction, and is one that may be firmly endorsed. But making this concession is not an endorsement of the categorical idea of a “gift of singleness” broadly possessed in the modern church. 

The tendency among young men and women to delay marriage (or even to abandon it entirely) in contemporary Western society has given birth to a curiously parallel increase of interest in Paul’s passing comment in 1 Corinthians 7:6–9 about his own marital state and implication that there is a “gift of singleness” to be had and even sought in the modern church. Note the full pericope in question:
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul offers very little commentary on his own statements, and peppers them with odd concessions that are uncharacteristic of the ordinarily straightforward Apostle. And since this passage has few parallels in the NT, the witness of the analogia scriptura is limited. All this means that these verses are difficult to interpret. Not surprisingly, there are several options about the “gift” Paul mentions in verse 7. Among a litany of options, three stand out:

Paul’s gift is a gift of singleness, a gift that he shares automatically with all single people.
Paul’s gift is a gift of singleness, a gift that he shares with many single people, namely, those who have, by God’s grace, become content with their singleness (and perhaps also those with a same-sex attraction, but that’s an outlying situation for another day).
Paul’s gift is a gift of continence—extraordinary control over his sexual drive—that allows him carry out uncommon tasks for the Christ Church without the burden of unfulfilled passions or the need to provide for a spouse. He shares this gift with very few single people.

The simple lack of data makes the decision a difficult one, but a careful look at Paul’s context and words offer more light than might be seen at first blush. Note the following:
The General Context: Paul is writing to a group of believers experiencing several forms of marital dysfunction who have approached Paul with questions. Some are faithfully married and concerned about sinning by having sex with their own spouses. Others had apparently been abandoned by their spouses when they embraced Christ. Some were apparently widowed. Others may never have married at all.
Paul’s lead statement in v. 1 has been debated for centuries—on two accounts: the meaning of the statement and the speaker. Does the statement mean that (1) Christian men and women should literally not touch each other (KJV/NASB)? Does it mean that (2) it is good for Christian men and women not to marry (NIV84), often with the corresponding idea that singleness is an equal option or even a superior option to marriage? Does it mean that (3) Christian men and women should never engage in any sexual activity and pursue celibacy as a more spiritual path (ESV, NIV2011, CSV)? And secondly, is this statement Paul’s own statement or is he summarizing for his readers the “matter they wrote about”? These decisions are crucial to our discussion, and the lack of unanimity here will lead to lack of unanimity later.
While reading verse 1 as a prohibition of all physical contact between men and women (option 1) has been a popular one within select purity codes, it proves too much (one must beg the question by inserting the qualifier “before marriage”); further, most have recognized the clause as idiomatic. The question thus migrates to the meaning of the idiom. The NIV84 reading that “it is good for a man not to marry” (option 2) has been thoroughly repudiated by Gordon Fee, and has been almost universally abandoned. This leaves option 3, that it is good for men and women—even married men and women—not to have sexual relations. The suggestion here is that celibacy sets the abstaining believer apart as more than usually spiritual (a Platonic idea adopted by many monastics/ascetics or those who pursue the priesthood within the Romanist model).
Read More
Related Posts:

No one has the authority to say it is permissible to willingly violate the Lordship of Christ as expressed in His Word. So ultimately, this issue is about the authority of the Word of God and the authority of Christ Himself. I will not make a biblical case for complementarianism in this article. But I must reiterate that the failure to pass the Law Amendment was a massive failure on the part of the SBC to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The SBC has a biblical authority problem.

At the end of his life, Charles Spurgeon faced a great controversy in the Baptist Union, which he called the “downgrade.” The Baptist Union would even censure him for his outspoken warnings against it in his magazine, The Sword and the Trowel. The Baptist Union would go on to adopt a compromised doctrinal statement on biblical inerrancy by a vote of 2000 to 7.
Evidence of Downgrade
By God’s grace, the Southern Baptist Convention is nowhere close to that type of compromise. However, the evidence of theological downgrade within the Convention is present. How can I utter such a statement when nearly everyone within the SBC affirms biblical inerrancy? The downgrade in the twenty-first century evangelical church is not primarily over inerrancy but on biblical authority—specifically on the issues related to human sexuality. It is at this point that Satan is attacking. At this year’s Convention in Indianapolis, a super-majority of 66% was needed to pass the so-called “Law Amendment,” which delineates that partnering churches should only have qualified men serving in the office of “pastor” or with the title of “pastor.” Specifically, the amendment proposed adding this clause to the SBC Constitution:
Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.
Unfortunately, the amendment did not pass, receiving a solid 61% of the vote but failing to reach the super-majority of 66%, which was needed. The bright side is that there is a broad majority within the SBC, which stands as thoroughly complementarian and affirming biblical authority in the area of men’s and women’s roles. The bad news is that nearly 39% of the Convention voted against the amendment. Arguments were made that there are better ways to convince churches to comply with the SBC’s doctrinal commitments. Or there is just a problem with nomenclature and not theology (I am not sure how you can legitimately argue that a title in a church is not theological). My friend, David Schrock, does a very helpful job of summarizing all the more egalitarian-leaning arguments against the amendment here.
However, these arguments fail to consider what the Bible plainly states about the issue. The question is really about biblical authority and Christ’s Lordship over His church, or in this case, a denomination.
Read More
Related Posts:

True faith is grounded in Christ’s work alone, not in anything we do. Yet, let me be clear: there is no pardon of sins without repentance (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). Repentance proceeds from faith; it does not precede faith. The cause of our pardon is Christ through faith. If repentance preceded faith, then our work of repentance would seem to be part of the ground for God to pardon us, which Scripture doesn’t teach.

The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance. — John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 119.

Repentance is a critical teaching of the Word of God. We are called to proclaim it in the name of Christ Jesus everywhere (Luke 24:47). Yet a question arises: must people repent of their sins and show a changed behavior, that is a changed life, before God grants justifying faith—faith that is the instrument by which God reconciles a sinful person to himself? Or does repentance follow faith? Which comes first—faith or repentance? And how do we know?
How should we define repentance and faith?
The Westminster Shorter Catechism has a helpful, biblically-based definition of repentance:

Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

The Heidelberg Catechism gives a good biblical definition of true faith:

Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.

Repentance is turning from sin to obedience. Internally, it is a hatred of sin and a motivation to live in gratitude and love by obeying God’s commands. Externally it is changed conduct. Saving faith is a gift of God in our hearts leading us to trust him alone for our forgiveness, righteousness, and salvation, only because of what Christ has done for us.
So, which comes first—faith or repentance? The answer is faith precedes repentance; it is a fruit of saving faith—not the other way around. A person is reconciled to God (justified) by faith alone, not by faith plus works. Yet, faith without repentance is not saving faith. Let me explain by considering what the Bible teaches.
The Bible contains various passages regarding the need for repentance.
The book of Acts records examples of the apostolic call to repent, believe, and be baptized; the call goes out in various combinations and order.
Read More
Related Posts: