Home

"make a commitment to this girl"

You are saying that you betrothed her, are you? That is you promised to marry...

Now try Deuteronomy 22:22-29 (verses 28 and 29 apply to the first question)

These are not about weddings and ceremony, but actually about rape; but they do illustrate the differences between being single and available, betrothed, and married. You may note that being betrothed carries much the same status as being married but they are still distinct from one another. Apparently there is some significance here and I would believe that it matters to God too: I am told that divorce, not marriage, was allowed because of the hardness of man's heart.

To give a brief paraphrase of the text for those not wanting to read it: if a man gets caught having sex with a woman, he is to be killed (circumstances are given that would allow the girl to be spared) unless she is single and available, and then he has to marry her.

You wrote: "Excuse me, but when have you ever read where I posted we can not know what's in a man's heart."

I have never read anything you posted until I chose to make a comment on this topic. I am totally new to this website and I must say it's been a very disheartening experience, so far. I cannot believe anyone who calls themselves Christain would figuratively fly accross the table and poke a finger in a man's chest they have never met before and accuse them of promoting fornication or any other sin. Do you really believe that wins anyone to your viewpoint of more importantly any soul to Christ??Outlandish and shameful! I could care less what you post, even though your above comment shows you to believe your posts are akin to Gospel. I guess I would too if I could know what is in a man's heart, as you contend is your ability.

You are not able to reason and have a conversation. That is not profitable for anyone. I will not waste my time with such tactics. We are told to kick off the dust and move on where we are not received. I imagine there's a huge pile of the stuff on your doorstep.

RickD,

You are a faninating poster. You come here and tell us fonication is O.K. and then get up set when you're confronted with this fact. You claim to know the mind of God. I quoted Scripture to support the Biblical postition of knowing one's heart. You convinced me you don't believe Scripture many post back when more than one poster confronted you.

As far as trying to convert you, I learned a long time ago when someone claims to be a Christian and does not accept the Scripture, they cannot be convinced from God's Word. I continue to post for those who read the threads and either dont' know what the Bible says or are not sure. I think you ment you couldn't care less. But you have responded to my posts. You are a hoot. You say I believe my posts are akin to Scripture. If you go back and check, you will discover I quoted Scripture to support the position. When someone comes to me with their opinions claiming they are consistant with God's mind, I want Scripture. I don't need to reason when I encounter someone distorting God's Word, I need to share the Word of God whether they accept It or not. God's Word always accomplishes Its purpose.

I know I should just do the work I came in tonight to do, but I can't resist one last post on this topic. Particularly for you Ringman, since I have endeared myself to you so.

My quandary results from your coming to the conclusion that I endorse, support and condone (you used all three of these loaded adverbs in the very first topic we kick around, and you think I'm a hoot???? ha ha!!!!!!) fornication because I stated that:

"I know of no biblical text mandating a ceremony, specific vows, or any requirement for marriage other than a man and woman to "cleave" to one another. This means to weave or become one. Each of the man and woman are incomplete without the other and this cleaving together with Christ as the mortar cements a marriage. God looks to the heart unlike man who looks to the outward appearances. If a man and woman purpose in their hearts honest before the Lord to commit to one another in a marriage relationship, then no ceremony or license is necessary to preclude a state of sin. "

I have clearly acknowledged that a marriage relationship must exist or a state of sin will be present in the above. I just happen to believe that God may recognize some marriages that you don't believe He will find acceptable. That is the crux and that was the original question. Not whether I condone or endorse fornication. I don't. I have said that I don't, but you will not allow that. You insist on ignoring my belief that God may not care about the license and ceremony as much as you do, and put words in my mouth. That is the intellectual dishonesty that prevents any possible genuine dialog.

You accuse me now of not believing Scripture. Wow! Now there's something that is unbelievable! You are totally wrong and so much more! I believe every line from Genesis to Revelation and King James is my preference.

In all this, the only scripture you can allude to to "prove" your point of view is the overused and often misused verse that tells to obey earthly authority. I have seen that mistreated so often! As an aside, we should all know that originally God was pretty insulted because his chosen, the Jews, demanded that earthly authority in the form of a king so they could be like all the pagan nations. Keeping up with the Joneses has always been man's way and Bain. God gave in after contending with them that they were going down the wrong path and would be sorry, but they insisted and along came Saul. He appeared to be the perfect King: a commanding figure, valiant in battle. And for a while he was all the people had hoped for. Then the problems came as they always do when man believes his way is better than God's. It ended up taking a mere boy to save them from Saul�s leadership against the Philistines. This mighty king of the masses upstaged by a boy with a rock! Of course it was God's boy and God's rock! Big difference!

From the fall in the garden on it�s been the same variation on that same theme pretty much. You may think I digress but this is all connected because all of scripture is connected with one main theme (obviously!). So anyway, yes we are commanded to subject ourselves to the earthy authority we are under (a command we called down upon ourselves, just as the Jews did their horrible curse asking for the blood of the Jesus to be on them and their children�s children...) So if we live in China do we kill our second child because the state says it must die or try to keep it alive somehow? I wouldn't obey the state, but if I got caught I would be in subject to it. The real "hoot" here is that given your concerns of living together without society�s license and ceremony, i.e. fornication, is there is not a law broken or any authority not being subject to. There is no law against living together and it is unfortunately very accepted today in our society, so that verse can't apply. If it was against the law or not allowed by culture or tradition, the verse might work. But it's not, so it doesn't. Also, God never says He will regard mans authority as binding on Him, just to subject ourselves to that authority. The distinction here is delicate but critical. Obviously, God is not bound to recognize values by mans authority even though He instructs us to be subject to them. Our fault: we told Him that's what we wanted.

I absolutely did not want to take this kind of hard stand on something that I took a side on that I have said I would not promote or recommend in the least. But it is still true that I believe what I said. There is nothing in scripture telling us how to marry. I am open if there is but I have read the bible many times. The New Testament (dozens if not hundreds) many times more than the Old, but I've sure spent some time there too. For me the issue has not become the original question but who is this God I serve and what importance is sin to the Christian.

Now here's a really important suggestion for you. Really important! Tell someone they don't know scripture, if you must (I would not recommend it, but suggest it as a lesser of two evils, only) but never tell them they don't believe scripture unless they overtly so state. You don't know what people believe and you certainly and obviously don't know what I believe from the little we have discoursed. Yes, you quoted scripture about a man speaking from what is in his heart. That certainly does not mean you can know the inner most convictions of a man's heart. That is called omniscience and only God is capable of that. We all know that a man does not always say what is in his heart, so this verse is out of context, just as your use of the subjection to authority verse is, in my view.

You have ridiculed me saying "You know the mind of God!" First I offer that the heart of God is also the mind of God since God cannot lie. Neither is true of man. I believe what man keeps in his heart is not always what his "intellect" will allow him to show forth and vise versa. I would offer to you that we have more opportunity to know the mind and heart of God than any mans mind or heart. God wants up to know His heart. This is what centuries of biblical history show us. He shows us first that apart from Him we are doomed and lost. When anything is required of us for submission and obedience to His law, we fail. Then He finally demonstrates with the perfect example of Jesus, in the flesh of a man to boot (who wouldathunk it: not man, only God!), what we have ignored. We couldn't do it because we were dead and just wouldn't acknowledge that condition. Have you ever seen a dead man accomplish anything? Once we acknowledge our dead hopeless existence and seek Him as the only answer for the abundant life He promised, we are transformed into Life from death. Only then does His Word becomes living and truly useful for the Holy Spirit to instruct us with. How many times have I read a scripture only to find new meaning and revelation because of the life He has instilled in His very Word! Praise Him!!!

But He wants so much more for us. Most importantly for me is that He wants a relationship with us, so special that we will be his Bride. What does it take to validate that marriage? There's a fun question for us....ha ha. We, as a church, can't even agree when He will accept the marriage of a man and a woman for a life on earth, much less in heaven for eternity with the Savior of mankind.

His is truly the narrow way because it's the only path to life with thousands of roads all around taking up the rest of the landscape of existence, leading only to death. But His burden is light and the One who loved us so would never ask us to shoulder a burden we could not bear. Could we bear up sinless before the Lord came? No! Did sin change its nature and ability to corrupt the flesh after the resurrection? Again, no. What did change was that when we accept Jesus, we are no longer subject to that old law of sin and death because we are translated into life. Sin, then to the believer becomes almost inconsequential. I hear the daggers being sharpened.....ha ha! Sin was only known after the apple. From that point on something that was not even known in the beginning, ruled man's life and caused his death. Once we are washed in His blood, sin should not exist as a point of contention for believers. To think otherwise diminishes His sacrifice. Of course Satan has made a (temporal) living out of sin, so he takes every opportunity to convince us how important it is. So we spend our time trying to find the sin in everything than trying to find God, His love and His blessings. We look to find lacking aspects in fellowships and individuals to tear them down instead of edifying them with Love and patience as did the Lord. How many examples did He set for us spending His time and effort on the vile, diseased (who the Jews believed were diseased due to their sin or generational sin), immoral, and condemned. Those who knew they were hopeless in sin were the only ones who truly received Him. We see little example of Him decrying these, the guilty, for their offences. Instead he showed perfect love and mercy. He reserved His harshest rebukes for those who in the eyes of the world were sinless keepers of the law. He knew better since only He knew their hearts and where they had taken the people: to hell! When the church really gets a hold of the lack of importance of sin to a Christian, then we will have one last revival and I think it will be coming very soon. When you see the pieces coming together in Babylon and Israel, the time is at hand like never before.

I serve a God who began the human race for reasons largely known only to Himself all the time knowing they would fail Him over and over again. He has shown us over and over again that He alone is the way to any real happiness and quality of life, per His definition and not ours. He has also shown us repeatedly that He uses the most unlikely heroes and solutions to move man along the road of his existence. He has allowed us to take his law, because we love legalism so, and make it into a death sentence. All the time pointing scripturally to the only real salvation that can be possible: Jesus. In Jesus we see all of His purpose in the years of humanity since the fall. In him we see Love, Peace, Understanding, Mercy and ultimately Grace. When we see the judgment of the Lord, we see it directed to those who would use the law to beat the people down and promote themselves. That is Satan at work. Most of the denominations that have formed, split and then split again are more evidence of Satan than of God. But God is exalted in all things and soon the church will understand that divided it cannot stand and put away all the divisiveness that has splintered it and come together finally in one last revival.

I apologize to you, if I have been contentious, or have insulted you. I know you love the Lord and have the best of intentions in leading people to Christ. I question tactics that promote hostility and telling most who love Jesus that they support, endorse and condone (all three, not just one.....ha!!!!) a sin of any kind, is gong to be hostile to most people. Again, I don't care what you say about me. I know what a wretched soul I am save for Christ. I do know who I am in Him, however, even though you don't. Whether my conclusions were solid or flawed is not the gist. The original topic is a form of bible conjecture: there is no specific scripture to allow a definitive answer. In effect it is trivia. When we get so caught up in trivia it trivializes the church. Sin is also trivia in the presence of and after the acceptance of the Savior. Certainly we do not sin so Grace may abound. But if it becomes our focus, and it does for many Christians, we cannot show forth the love He set for us as the ultimate demonstration of freedom from sin.

I'm done with this post and the marriage in the eyes of God topic. I will start a new thread or two soon, in a week or two when we get back from Hills Alive in the Black Hills this week.

I'm having surgery to take out my gall bladder after we get back so I may not get back here very soon. Have a nice week!

Rick

RickyD, What does the Scripture say,

"Beloved, I urge you as aliens an strangers to abstain from flesly lusts, which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles so that in the thing in which they slander you as evil doers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit your selves for the Lord's sake to every human institution: Whether to a king as the one in authrity; or the goernors as sent by him...."

Tell me again you don't believe fornication is acceptable and you believe every Word of God. In the United States there are governmental documents called marriage licenses. If you don't want to shack up, you get one of these and use it. You are decieved and trying to decieve us.

RickyD,

If the Lord didn't have a lot of form on a ceremony, and admittedly, there is not a lot in the bible on the ceremony, why would he make sure that a divorce was called a "writing of divorcement" or a "bill of divorcement"? Seems in order to cancel a marriage there was a requirement for a piece of paper. Is it such a stretch to have a piece of paper going in? Another area where he left things pretty much up to us was the area of church operations. There is not a lot in the scriptures about the day to day operations of a local church. It should be open, above the boards, and decently done and it should not cross certain scriptural guide lines, but it is pretty open for the individual churches to settle. Same goes for a lot of things. There are areas where God looks on the heart of the people not on the form and substance. The thing about submitting to every ordinance of man is good stuff. It doesn't compromise your faith in the Bible, and the rest of the world sees that your intention is right with the woman of your choice, cause they won't be at the church service where the intentions are announced and the church folks give their blessing to the newly married couple.

In a perfect world, and where will we find that nowadays, I believe that two people who had purposed in their hearts to live together as man and wife could get up in front of their local church, and announce the intentions of their hearts to be joined as husband and wife. We are talking Christians here, right. I believe the crux of the issue is for other people to know BEFORE HAND that this is not a trial thing, and that your hearts are nit together in love. So if they stand up before their home congregation and pledge their troth, and the local pastor is behind them, and says so, doesn't that seem a little more like a orderly way of doing business? That way there is no appearance of evil. The government licence thing only adds to the confusion and is just another way for them to intervene, but it doesn't compromise the scriptures, and adds an air of respectablity to the wedding.

Don't let ringman get you frazzled. He can be pretty agravating at times.

This is not directed at anyone on this thread, just from reading all of the posts, I had a few comments to add to this topic,



Okay I get it! If we profess our love to a woman and live with her for a while we are then "married in Gods eyes", correct so far?



Here is another point to consider, what about children? So we live on together and produce little ones, what now? Well the next step is telling them we love them and commit ourselves as their parents and soon after they become non-bastard children , right!!



Here's another point to ponder! What if you or your "spouse" break the commitment and your "marriage in the eyes of God" falls apart! I suppose that means you have been fornicating all along since you broke the commitment and your offspring become bastard children again, Am I correct so far?



Unless of course you are protected by some "grandfather rights" clause "In the eyes of God"



What I'm trying to say is there are many of us that create scenarios to try and justify our actions both past and present,



Thus we commit more sins in trying to work around the word of God concerning the union of man and woman.



I assure you it does not go right by Him, and we will be judged and punished accordingly..

No, not merely a profession of love but a commitment and covenant between the couple and the Lord. I had said the following: "I know of no biblical text mandating a ceremony, specific vows, or any requirement for marriage other than a man and woman to "cleave" to one another. This means to weave or become one. Each of the man and woman are incomplete without the other and this cleaving together with Christ as the mortar cements a marriage. God looks to the heart unlike man who look to the outward appearances. If a man and woman purpose in their hearts honest before the Lord to commit to one another in a marriage relationship, then no ceremony or license is necessary to preclude a state of sin. "

The essential aspects of this relationship are honest hearts before the Lord, commitment to each other, Christ at the center of the relationship binding the couple together.

You ask regarding: "What if you or your "spouse" break the commitment and your "marriage in the eyes of God" falls apart! I suppose that means you have been fornicating all along since you broke the commitment and your offspring become bastard children again, Am I correct so far?
"
That would not be correct. My position would be that under the scenario you present a divorce has now occurred. We are forbidden divorce and remarriage. If remarriage occurred and was consummated, then fornication would be present in that relationship. If you must attribute illegitimacy to any children, and I am at a total loss to understand why that is necessary for even discussion, it would be attributed to the children of the second relationship.

Shootist,

II am firmly in favor of the traditional marriage. I have said that before. My wife and I had a wonderful wedding almost 16 years ago. I would always encourage couples to do the same and would make no mention of any other kind of marriage commitment as acceptable to the Lord since I agree with you that an "air of respectability" is preferable particularly given "Christians" proclivity to kill and eat their wounded. My contention that the Lord would honor a covenant between Himself and a man and woman without a ceremony or license, reflects on how I view my personal God and Savior. I just can't say that God would not or could not ordain a marriage when His Word simply says the couple should cleave together. How simple is salvation, but many try to make it as complicated as we can, too. Mankind just doesn't seem to like the ways God chooses to accomplish his purposes. What we do like are rules and laws to beat people up with. I love to see scripture used to teach and discuss in love. I hate to see it used to confront and condemn. I believe God hates it even more given His treatment of the Pharisees, who were in their minds, His only truth on earth. He sure didn't see it that way!

The issue of divorce makes for more interesting discussion. As I understand my bible, Christians are not allowed re-marriage after a divorce. That would constitute sexual sin, since God will not annul the original covenant. Maybe the pope will, but that's another matter. God seems to expect more from Christians in marriage than He did before that excruciating sacrifice on the cross. I believe this is because now He is nurturing the Church to become His bride and the Church is called to exemplify in our earthly life what He will require for eternity.

I don't have a bible in the office today but I didn�t think we were called to obey every ordinance but rather to subject ourselves to the authority of the government. I could be wrong, here but again, are we to allow our children killed, as in China, or allow slavery and refuse to help those in bondage because a government allows or compels it? Subjection to government is different than acceptance and performance of every ordinance. And again, there is no ordinance or authority against living together without license or ceremony. God never said He would accept a government�s judgments or laws as His own.

Ringman does not frazzle me. I just hate to see the Church set upon it's own but it is a common occurrence. Satan loves to see it, however, and that snake is the originator of dissent and condemnation in the church among its own. And we fall for it: and that's the part I really hate!

The bible says we are to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man. Of course, if it goes contrary to a clear principle of scripture like the Chinese killing their babies, that goes against the clear principle of scripture. Even Moses' mother knew that. If the civil government said I had to deny my faith in Christ to get a marriage licence, I would forgo the licence. If it said I had to promise to riase my children as sodomites, I would forgo the licence. Peter said we ought to obey God rather than men certainly in cases like that.

If it doesn't contradict the scripture, follow the laws of the land. Like speed laws, and seat belt laws, and marihuana laws and that type of thing. To be a good citizen, obey the rules, unless they go cross grain to the scriptures. Marriage licences do not go across any scripture I know of.

As far as divorce, that is the topic of another LONG debate. Not for the here and now.

the_shootist,

You said what I have been trying to say. Sue reminds me often that tact is not one of my strong points, but Scripture certainly has been. As I get older, it seems I am forgetting some references.

When someone tries to confuse the church the way at least two folks on this thread have, I think about 2 Peter 3:16,

"...which the untaught and unstable distort, as also the rest of the scripture, to their own distruction."

Ringman hit it right on....

"...which the untaught and unstable distort, as also the rest of the scripture, to their own destruction"

We may be able to justify our actions to ourselves and to some others, but the fact remains we cannot fool Him.

Ringman,

That's twice in about two years that we have agreed on something. One of us MUST be wrong this time.

the_shootist,

I don't want to let you down. You are wrong. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> We do agree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> And we are right!! We have God's Word.

Ringman what bible version are you using to render this passage? My King James does not use the word "distort" but instead "wrest" as in wrestle with. The passage you cite when read in context and with the wording found in my bible does not show the context you attempt to convey at all. Rather, it warns of the problems encountered by individuals who are not educated in scripture or mature in the faith when they attempt to understand some topics that Paul taught on that are more weighty or difficult to grasp. It points to salvation as the key message and that some are best left to the simplicity of that message, so they do not fall into traps that other more difficult to comprehend scripture can be used for until they are prepared to understand them having grown in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

So you attempt to use this passage to condemn "at least two folks" as trying to confuse the church and have instead done the very same thing yourself. You sure confused Proman, who I doubt ever referenced your passage for himself. Considering that his urinating logo speaks to more than his feelings regarding antihunters, I am not surprised he chose your bandwagon to jump on.

You mentioned a lack of tact before. Don't worry about tact until you are blessed with discernment. You seem to be quick to jump on any scripture or portion thereof that will prove, for you, a point. You quoted this totally out of context as you did your reference to the Pharisees not knowing scripture. Both of these instances show your lack of discernment and flagrant disregard for the truth.

Do you also use different bible versions to imply different meanings given the different words those versions may chose? If you are doing that as well, that is deceitful. You hold yourself out as so mature in scripture, but I have seen little evidence to support and much more to negate this self righteous portrayal of yourself.

I'm not trying to be harsh with you but I must tell you what I see you doing and it's not constructive for the Kingdom of Christ. I hope others will see this too and I am sure they have. I expect this will elicit some demeaning rhetoric from you but before you do, try to have a conversation before you throw some slanted barb as you like to do in most instances of posts you author.

You pronounce yourself right with two exclamation points in a recent post. I don't believe you are right at all but again ignoring my arguments and ignoring the power of God Himself. You attribute scripture to fit with cultural acceptance and limit God to being able to ordain only within the context that men accept. It is not a good fit noting no ordinance is required to live as a man and wife. Man does give us an ordinance that validates marriage after a time period has passed. This ignores the cleaing and becoming one fresh that God requires. God does not need a time period or anything else when he approves the heart. Jesus clearly defined marriage in Matt 19 5& 6 as �God joined� and rather than needing mans help to accomplish thie union, man was forbidden to attempt to disrupt it which had now become one flesh.

This is the same God who had a man build a boat in the desert, seldom if ever mightily used the firstborn of men in disregard to the custom of men, had an ass straighten out a (false) prophet, and showed us time and again that if we don�t think He can do it, we are likely wrong. This is what this whole post has been about for me. You don�t think God can ordain marriage without mans help and I believe He can if He wants to. Our ways are not His ways. I don�t now or ever expect you to agree with me on anything. I believe poor Shootist , while feigning jest, was likely truly distraught over the possibility that you both agreed. I can understand why. I believe if we had a good pot of coffee and some eye to eye discussion with him, he would see much more of my position than yours. And even if not we would both grow in our understanding of the Lord and be blessed by it. I see no blessings coming from you: only condemnation.

Work on that. OK? ha ha!

After all we have discussed it seems, (unless I missed it) that there is very little inspired scripture that describes what an "official" marriage is.

Just cleaving together that can't be the whole deal because Jesus revealed to the woman at the well that the man she was currently with was not her husband. So how could that be?

Nonetheless it seems all through out the Old and New Testaments that there is an implied assumption that folks just knew what a marriage was and what it was not. I know the ancient Jews had an elaborate marriage ceremony, but I have not studied it out in detail. Perhaps those extrabiblical histories of this ceremony might throw some light on the subject.

Leave
Cleave
Commit- (life long)
Public ceremony with witnesses by community, friends, church etc.

Like Christ commands us to confess Him in public before witnesses, I believe we should hold our marriage ceremony. If it is not public and witnessed then how would folks know if you are fornicating or "legally" married. If it is just leave and cleave and no public ceremony then what if you take up with a whore for a month or two? Who is the concubine and who is the lawful wife?

I have not been following this thread, except that I have the impression that someone thinks that God recognizes and approves a marriage based upon what a couple says about whether they are married or not and without a formal ceremony.

The Jews did have a formal marriage, and Jesus� first miracle was at a marriage (Jn 2). Marriage is a covenant relationship (Malachi 2:14). God makes them one (Matthew 19:6).
Marriage is to be for life and it takes a commitment that is a covenant relationship. For two to shack up and claim that they do not need any formal marriage or �paper� does not square with the Bible.

God tells us that we are to obey the law of our nation. To be married requires not only the spiritual commitment for life as a covenant relationship, but also the formal and legal procedures of the state must be satisfied.

A couple�s intent to marry does not give them the right to have sex. Until they are married, sex is sin.

Most of the shacking up is a result of the couple not being willing to make the commitment to love and cherish through sickness and health, through good times and bad times, for life.

Jerry

It would be easy to turn this into a Baptism discussion. In essence, I agree. I would prefer "public confession" to "ceremony" but why argue semantics?

If we never question the salvation of a believer who refuses to confess his belief, it is because we never consider that he does believe, not that we might consider that he doesn't. How then can anyone assume to defend a marriage that outwardly does not exist? As much as I like the song "Gentle on my Mind", confession is essential to commitment and should precede consecration. Inasmuch as we die to the world and are joined to Christ when we are saved, we die to our own life when we are joined to our wives. If it were not so, there would be no need for a public confession or ceremony as we would be free to sleep with anyone we choose. It is even more important (to the commitment) with marriage as salvation is bound in Heaven but marriage dies with the body here on this earth, necessitating earthly ordnances. As for God�s timing concerning marriage, not till after Christ died for us on the cross (publicly, I might add) did the temple veil tear. If we only die to our own lives symbolically, how much more so is public witness necessary?