Sinning by NOT having Sex?

I read a comment on one of the forums here by a single person about doing something really bad, like having sex. It makes sense for a single person to think that. But for married folks, can't it be a sin to not have sex?

I Corinthians 7

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
(ESV)

Related to this subject, what about taking your share of sex from your partner? Pastor Steven Anderson said men and women are entitled to use of their partners' bodies. He said it is a safeguard against straying.
A question regarding this, 'though is - If a partner refuses to have sex, is the other entitled to use force?
I'm not sure of Anderson's position on this, but he does not recognise marital rape.
I'd be interested in others' opinions.

Aa a husband who must love my wife as Christ loves the church, I shouldn't do things I know will hurt our relationship, or hurt her physically and emotionally. I suppose the only exception would be for the greater risk-- like you might hurt someone a little if you grab them to save them from being hit by a moving bus and you both land to the ground. I don't see how sex could fall into that category.

I believe that both partners should willingly meet the other's needs.

I do have some concerns about the legal system putting prosecuting for marital rape given how bitter some divorced people can get, revisionist history, how the definition of 'rape' is getting fuzzier (e.g. to include sex given when one party consents but isn't thrilled about it.) I don't think Christians should drink, but if an unbelieving married couple get drunk and have sex, I don't think the man should be charged with rape and that should be treated differently from drunk college students that meet in a bar. I don't think elderly married people with Alzheimer's should be deemed not legally able to give consent and deprived of consortium by the state based on those grounds.

Steve Anderson is one of those people I would NOT refer people to as a source of Bible teaching. He'd be on my list with Kenneth Copeland of people I would not encourage baby Christians to listen to, also.

Thanks for replying. Sex/ consent is a minefield of grey areas.
The idea of someone being forced is abhorrent to me and I'm not saying Anderson justifies this.
One thing, 'though, - although I'm no fan of Mr Anderson, I believe he's sincere and faithful to his view of the direction of the Bible and very different from blatant charlatans like Kenneth Copeland.

Sin is easy....so very easy.
It's being righteous that's difficult.

There's literally trillions of ways to sin....only one to be righteous.

Do you know how?

[QUOTE="JohnDB,
The only way I know is to learn about God, primarily through the Bible, and to try to adhere to what is good and eschew evil as well as we can in our fallen state.

If only that was enough....

The Pharisees, Scribes, and Priests all believed and lived out exactly what you just stated.
But it didn't exactly work out well for them with Jesus now did it?

So how are YOU different than they were?

Marital rape is not specifically mentioned in the Bible; however that doesn't mean it is allowed. Some issues are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

We do know that the Bible frowns on rape. A commandment that husbands love their wives, would not include rape. A marital rape also does not reflect the relationship between Christ and Church.

I don't have all the answers, but I do not believe marital rape is the answer. If a husband is found in this situation, best course of action is to pray and the wife may come around. We know that wives are constantly told to pray for their husbands if they husband is wayward, an alcoholic, etc., and sometimes these issues do not get resolved for decades but the husband may eventually come around.

Similarly, it is not okay for a wife to rape her husband, to force sex acts on him, etc.

I don't know if you've heard of Steven Anderson or if you've heard him speak on this topic, but he says that women and men have access to each others' bodies. He didn't go into whether force is justifiable in the case of refusal and I suspect he doesn't believe it would be, but as it's stated in the Bible, I wonder if it be the logical conclusion.

Other than what can be gleaned from the Bible, the actions and beliefs of the Pharisees are largely unknown to me. But the general idea of Jesus' attitude towards them was accusing them of hypocrisy, treating people differently from what their high-brow words would indicate. Another thing is - apparently, they didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. I approach Christianity with a view that Jesus is the Messiah, the sinless proposition for sin.

The Pharisees, Scribes, and Priests all believed and lived out exactly what you just stated.
But it didn't exactly work out well for them with Jesus now did it?

So how are YOU different than they were?[/QUOTE]

As long as it's nothing weird or too objectionable, as a husband, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Just to remind everyone, the topic in the OP is about the husband or the wife rendering due benevolence, not about the husband or wife forcing himself/herself on the other.

He teaches against what is termed "force" in the Bible. Nowhere have I heard him say anything about spousal abuse; rather rendering due benevolence to the weaker vessel...the woman. The only times I ve heard him speak to the marriage bed in such was to:
A. Not abstain for very long, so there is not a temptation to sin and that for agreed fasting and to abstain for child bearing when the woman needs to.
B. For the men to not deny the wife of sex as in the Catholic rythm method. He said it denies the women at their most hormonally pleasurable peak time of the month. He taught against the rhythm method because it denies the wife.

Someone who does not use the term rape, but chooses to use the KJV term "force" does not necessarily mean that they agree to rape. He can speak for himself. I'm at a disadvantage since I don't have the sermon before me. The Bibles admonition to both husbands and wives that they do not own their own bodies, is not the same as saying it condones forcing the spouse against her or his will.

That seems to be what it is saying. Temptation to adulterate would logically be lessened. There seems to be a connection between sex and love within the institution of a healthy Christian marriage.

The command to love one another covers such things.

That sounds reasonable. I'd add periods, too. The Gentiles were driven from the land for it. I consider it to be in the 'fornication' category.

That makes sense, too, unless the two have agreed to fast at that time.

First of all, I don't know why I'm always compelled to comment on threads like this one. Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment.

Second of all, having read so many different comments about "having sex", terminology which I personally despise, on so many different threads here, I'm honestly wondering if I'm not from another planet or something. Seriously.

Here's the way that I, as a Christian man, truly see it...

What type of ANIMAL would I need to be in order to desire/demand "sex" from my wife when she wasn't desiring the same at any given moment in time?

Seriously, am I a man who actually loves and cares for his wife or just a dog in heat who is selfishly looking for someone's leg to hump?

For example, I was married for 17 years, and, as I've testified here before, I learned that my now ex-wife had been repeatedly sexually molested by her own father between the ages of 5 and 6 years old. There were MANY TIMES when we were CONSENSUALLY going to MAKE LOVE, NOT "have sex", that she had flashbacks to what her father had done to her. Should I, leaning on I Corinthians 7:4 and many people's totally warped understanding of it, have demanded to "have sex" with my wife at those times?

Having read the comments of many a different poster here on many a different thread, I honestly believe that many of them actually would have. If I just described anyone reading this, then let me tell you plainly that you're a sick, selfish animal.

Well, I never did. In fact, there were also MANY TIMES when I was thinking on my wife during my work day and feeling a bit, how shall I say, "amorous" towards her that I still refrained from any sort of sexual activity with her because I could see that she had had a long day and was tired. There's A LOT MORE to "due benevolence" than just "having sex", you know. How about a husband actually caring for his wife spiritually and emotionally, and not just selfishly desiring to "get his rocks off".

God forbid!!!

Anyhow, I've said enough...come what may.

Yes. Periods are always cause for pause.

>

Ephesians 5

" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;...so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"

This isn't a difficult subject.
Any accusations of preachers condoning rape should be backed with the video IF that's in question. There are men's reputations at stake who lead thousands to Christ. The devil would like to toss a bees hive of railing accusations into that.