quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
What would need to be different for it to be a marriage in the Christian sense ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Personally, I think that contemporary usage of the word marriage refers largely to administrative or social constructions. It gets you tax breaks, makes you next of kin, adds society's stamp of approval to your relationship, and so on. I don't think this is remotely close to the concept of marriage used in biblical times. In that (more spiritual) sense, I would say that any two people who meaningfully commit themselves to each other are married: in that sense it's a promise made between two people.

It certainly doesn't lay down rules for who gets to be 'head' over the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You say 'who gets to be' as if headship is a perk of being male. That's a bit like saying that crucifixion was one of the perks of being Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You say 'who gets to be' as if headship is a perk of being male. That's a bit like saying that crucifixion was one of the perks of being Jesus.

---

Historically, I think it's quite easy to argue that having authority over women was definitely a perk of being male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If you equate 'having authority' as 'being free to exploit and abuse' then, yes, I can see how that could be argued from history. It can't, however, be argued from Apostolic teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The marriage service did not spring up fully formed on the occasion of the resurrectoin of Christ. So how would a Christian have married in 100AD ?

If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Numpty, if you had a look at the marriage registry in the church which I serve (and I certainly would not allow you to!) you would find that out of just over 120 weddings I have conducted, over 100 of the couples had the same address when they applied for the licence. In other words (gasp!) they were living together before being married.

---

quote:

---

I did not presume to "rebuke" any of these couples; instead, I performed a marriage for them, rejoicing that I had the privilege of offering the blessings and grace of God on their lives together.

---

quote:

---

I did not consider them to be fornicators, I considered them to be children of God beloved of God.

---

quote:

---

Before you attempt to remove the speck from Prince William's eye, might I suggest that you first remove the judgmental log from your own eye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If you equate 'having authority' as 'being free to exploit and abuse' then, yes, I can see how that could be argued from history. It can't, however, be argued from Apostolic teaching.

---

Unfortunately, it frequently was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Why is formal committment more important than actual committment ? I don't really want this to be all about the royals - but a decade is a hell of a long test drive. It suggests that a lot more is involved in that relationship - that we should not simply dismiss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

---

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

---

I'm sorry but I can't and don't accept that view of scripture. I simply do not believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed the Apostolic writings to be culturally skewed in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

---

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.

---

It is if there's any hint of contingency, which there definitely is with the case in question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's true. But the fact that Paul was viewing the world through distinct cultural blinders is definitely grounds for reinterpreting what he said.

---

I'm sorry but I can't and don't accept that view of scripture. I simply do not believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed the Apostolic writings to be culturally skewed in that way.

---

Fair enough. I don't want to argue hermeneutics with you so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's fornication. Prince William quite openly admits that he has been, in effect, test driving Kate for that last decade or so.

---

Living together in a committed relationship is not 'test driving' of any sort.

---

It is if there's any hint of contingency, which there definitely is with the case in question.

---

How do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

Excuse me butting in from the Under grace (well, mostly)? thread and being a bit provocative, but isn't this legalism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.

---

And what is wrong with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

---

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Spiffy - I think that William has said he wanted Kate to have the opportunity to see what she would be taking on, given the pressures that were put upon his mother by virtue of her marriage.

Although, that implies to me that the Royal Family and the press were the ones being "test driven".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

---

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?

---

Apostolic teaching as per Acts 2:42 and to Jesus Christ as per Matthew 28:20.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, it's obedience.

---

Obedience to what or to whom, precisely?

---

Apostolic teaching as per Acts 2:42 and to Jesus Christ as per Matthew 28:20.

---

You're going to have to fill in some gaps for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?

---

For the same reason that actual participation in the Eucharist is important for continuation in the faith. You appear to be advocating a sort 'Salvationist' understanding of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

---

You've explained that your actions in a similar situation would be to rebuke and exhort the couple to marry. OK - but would you feel the need to do so publicly?

William and Kate have been public about the fact that they have been waiting to be sure they could have a successful marriage. I am not sure that they have made any public statements about their sexual relationship which would appear to be a more private matter. Why assume that they have not been privately rebuked and exhorted to marry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

This is a genuine question for my general knowledge: Why?

---

For the same reason that actual participation in the Eucharist is important for continuation in the faith. You appear to be advocating a sort 'Salvationist' understanding of marriage.

---

Okay, I know what all the words in that reply mean but I don't get your point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Apostles' teaching contains sufficient instruction about marriage as does the teaching of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

---

You've explained that your actions in a similar situation would be to rebuke and exhort the couple to marry. OK - but would you feel the need to do so publicly?

William and Kate have been public about the fact that they have been waiting to be sure they could have a successful marriage. I am not sure that they have made any public statements about their sexual relationship which would appear to be a more private matter. Why assume that they have not been privately rebuked and exhorted to marry?

---

Prince Charles came very close, albeit in a tongue in cheek way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Incidentally, before the thread in Hell descended into profanitiy and verbal abuse and dead horse territory (particularly thanks to Marvin) the discussion had been about the status of Prince William and Katherine's pre-marital sexual relationship. I suggested that it was fornication and out-of-order for the a future Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
As a Quaker I do share that view.

---

quote:

---

In the presence of God (OR In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly), Friends, I take this my friend NAME to be my husband/wife, promising, through divine assistance (OR with God's help), to be unto him/her a loving and faithful wife/husband, so long as we both on earth shall live (OR until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I suppose the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament is helpful in answering this question. If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?

---

quote:

---

young people live together before they marry these days - and good on 'em I say.

---

I see......Stuff the Bible and its Author, I have the platform and this is the 21st Century. What does it matter what God's Word may say....

[fixed code and deleted pointless duplicate post]

[ 26. November 2010, 03:20: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Numpty: it would appear from your tone that you would prefer that William and Kate should not get married at all, since they would then be honest fornicators (and would no longer be under sentence of anathema from you, which probably doesn't matter to them anyway)

The alternative would be for each of them to marry someone else with whom they have not fornicated, so they would no longer be doing that particular form of activity. BUT those marriages would not have been "test driven" and we would probably be back to Charles and Diana again.

Neither is a particularly desirable outcome, except that you wouldn't be fulminating in public, an activity which is probably forbidden by some obscure social rule normally applied to bishops.

Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?
 

---

Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on :
 
I have read through this thread from the beginning. Why do the words "Self-righteous prig" keep coming to my mind. When you think of the way the Royals treated Dianna and their expectations that a 20 year old could understand the pressures of the fishbowl publicity machine, I think Prince William and Kate Middleton are very sensble to let her be exposed to what their life together is bound to be like. Now she understands what it feels like, she is in a position to decide whether or not she can take it.

The church has to keep up with society when it comes to marriage and family anf if there are priggish, oldfashioned people locked in the past, they have to prepare to suffer in silence.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
I have read through this thread from the beginning. Why do the words "Self-righteous prig" keep coming to my mind. When you think of the way the Royals treated Dianna and their expectations that a 20 year old could understand the pressures of the fishbowl publicity machine, I think Prince William and Kate Middleton are very sensble to let her be exposed to what their life together is bound to be like. Now she understands what it feels like, she is in a position to decide whether or not she can take it.

The church has to keep up with society when it comes to marriage and family anf if there are priggish, oldfashioned people locked in the past, they have to prepare to suffer in silence.

---

People have the right to voice whatever religious belief they want to express. You have a right to ignore them. You do not have a right to silence them. I'm not sure what you mean by Church. I guess you mean the Church of England. Then again, I'm starting to think the Church of England is a big joke that now exists a cautionary tale for Christians about avoiding entanglements with their national government.
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
ByHisBlood, there is a really nice thread here where you can introduce yourself to people on the Ship, should you choose to do so.
You will receive a warm welcome there, and it is a good place to exchange friendly greetings.
If you don't mind a suggestion, though, maybe hold off on the there!

[ 26. November 2010, 02:56: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?

---

And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
although I haven't conducted that many weddings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
As someone else pointed out above, the position being taken by Numpty and various others .....

Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? ...

---

Oh, everyone knows Jesus only mixed with those with the proper Calvinist dispensations and Letters Of Credentials, and so many facial pimples that temptation simply wasn't a problem, really. And everyone knows that the Blessed live among us and have full mySQL Query database access to the Divine to determine who's on the Saved list and who not.

You know, Arrietty, what this reminds me of? It reminds me of many Christian men I have see, FINE upstanding, well, at least upper bourgeois if not terribly up to it, Christian men, who would bounce up to a visiting preacher or their mega-pastor and say, breathily, "You know, I believe/think/feel God has given me the Gift of Leadership....."

When I overheard suchlike, and I'm surprised myself at how many I have heard utter those sentiments, I always felt like taking the silly boy to the side and hammering him over the head with a thick telephone direcrtory (old police trick; it leaves no visible bruises. Don't ask), and telling him, look, you silly little boy, it's the situation and good will * that make a leader, not wishful thinking. In any bad situation, simply lead and lead well, and ffs, don't wank on about it.

It's like that with all the ... [for want of a better term] men who want women submitting like so many fainting violets to them. I feel like using the Sydney telephone directory (very thick and heavy) on them, and saying, "Ffs, just be a man, if you can, and shut tf up if you can't, and stop instead demanding some sort of fake manhood conferred on you by women pretending you actually have a visible non-microscopic pair of balls".

Oooo, and then there's the backbiting denuciations like old spiteful women over the house fences gossiping evilly about someone, in such a very voyeuristic fashion (ooo! living together, are they? Bonking every night?), and then the doctrine of salvation by taking that all and elevating it, saving it, gloriously redeeming it, to the Theology of Self-Righteous Damnation. Or in other words some theologies have no need of Peter Mandelson or me with our cynical, cynical, cynical ways and spin-doctoring skills, because frankly, when you get right down to it, those theologies are far more cynical and evil than anything I, Mandelson or Satan himself could come up with. When Pentacost comes to mean being filled with the Spirit of a lowergrade Fred Phelps.

* Interestingly enough, a new sociological/psych study shows narcissists make mediocre to incompetent leaders. They're most often simply not up to the tasks, not fit for purpose. They believe owing to their narcissism they have the entitlement to lead, since they project that so much many others believe them, so they often end up leading, but they're actually not every good at it, not good at the job. It's an interesting study indeed.

[ 26. November 2010, 07:40: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Well, Numpty, if ever head shaving, public denouncements from the pulpit of 'notorious sinners' and branding comes back, I'm sure the authorities know where to go to find the guy who'll do the job.

As it happens, I can respect, while not agreeing with, the view that takes a legalistic, immovable view of what the Bible would classify 'fornication', because I understand where it's coming from. However, I'm bound to say that as with much that is Biblical, my own understanding is, it's the principle essence of what the laws surrounding fornication were designed to achieve that is important, rather than the incidental contexts.

That is, a protection for people, principally women, who were exceptionally vulnerable to being loved and left in an age when that could mean the difference between a settled married life, with bed and board; and being abandoned disgraced, dishonoured and left to fend for oneself, or chained to the family.

There was also, of course, sadly the element of punishment. Presumably for the 'harm' done to an innocent and blameless society by the moral criminality of two consenting adults sharing intimacy .

As much of our society no longer views a sexually active unmarried person as a pariah; and accepts as normative 'living together', I feel it's hard to argue that legalistic adherence to a Biblical view of fornication is helpful or applicable. Debateably, a strong downside to this might be a devaluation of the uniqueness and specialness of sexual intimacy. But that does seem to be a very subjective thing.

However, I can see how, in societies or cultures where people are still inclined to view consenting and non-abusive extra or pre-marital sex as an occasion for public interest and/or punitive action it is safer to stick to the literal Biblical view. But I can't see that as a good thing, myself.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Numpty--

Is what you suggest in the realm of good pastoral care? Seems more like beating them for fun and profit.


As to whether W&K have "commited fornication":

Well, we don't know whether they did or didn't. And a person's father generally isn't a good source of info about his kid's sex life.

If they had sex (which, frankly, is none of our business) and that presents some sort of impediment to being Head of the Church,...I suspect that most past British monarchs have had similar impediments, if not far, far worse.

That kind of "sin" would be between William, Kate, their confessor, and God.


I think it's enormously sensible of William to try to make sure Kate understands what she's gettng into. (Wearing his mom's engagement ring is probably quite a reminder.) No one should have to go through what Diana did. Personally, I hope they either elope or have a very small, private wedding. That would declare definite boundaries from the beginning.

Leave William and Kate alone. Give them space to give their marriage a healthy foundation and start...and to have and to keep some mental health.


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The answer why Prince William and Kate Middleton must be considered fornicators (in the modern sense) for almost a decade, if they had any sex that is, is simply that they seek marriage now. Thereby they declare that they were not married before and I see no reason not to believe them. If they considered themselves to be married, they would instead seek a "simple convalidation" or a "radical sanation" of their invalid marriage.

Now, maybe they are doing that, because it certainly could be so arranged that the "show" for the public looks near indistinguishable. Yet I have not heard anything so far that would indicate that they are aware of any problem with their previous arrangements. Thus that seems rather unlikely.

If one wants to avoid the "fornication label", a more likely story is I that this is not about celebrating marriage before God, but before man. That in a sense is fair enough as far as the couple is concerned, if they indeed married each other earlier (likely invalidly, but perhaps not consciously so) and now just want to get the public on board. The problem then is more why the Church is playing along, given that her obedience is to God primarily, not to man.

As far as they personally are concerned, why are we going on about it? I'm 95% certain that they were/are fornicators. So was I. Now I'm married, and so they will be. Let's hope that it is a start in a better relationship before God for them, and wish them all the best for it. The only problem I see here is that Prince William is likely going to be a "Defender of the Faith" one day. Some show of awareness that there is some problem with pre-marital sex would seem appropriate to that job description...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


I would argue that talking about them as a 'couple' is the nearest we can get to it. They will be going from 'couple' to 'married couple'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm really quite curious, Numpty, why you have such a strong opinion about this. As far as I can tell through the anonymous nature of the Internet, you are not a member of this couple, nor are you their parent or their priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gurdur:
It only remains to be said after all of that in the thread that the only genuine ambiguity of fornication that there is is if you were so stoned/drunk the last night you can't remember whether you
1) visited the brothel
2) actually managed to accomplish anything in there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
...
Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? And that his general statements about forgiveness being available to all have the unspoken proviso 'Unless you have had premarital sex'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? And that his general statements about forgiveness being available to all have the unspoken proviso 'Unless you have had premarital sex'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
I'm assuming it might be something to do with the fact that Prince William will, in all likelihood, become the Supreme Governor of the Church of which Numpty is a licenced cleric. We have seen the importance some attach to the oath of alleigance to the monarch with the sorry tale of the Willesden/London debacle.

This is not simply the handsome heir to a fortune marrying a beautiful heiress, nor is it relevant only to readers of Country Life or the Tatler. This is the probable next but one Supreme Governor of the Church of England marrying.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:


So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.

---

In actual fact, God has given us free will so we are all free to sin. Jesus paid the price of that sin, so that if we truly repent we don't have to.

So if you want to look at it that way, Jesus has given us 'carte blanche to sin.'

'Whatever that means.'


 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It seems pretty clear that views vary depending on what kind of sacramental view you hold. If, somehow, a Christian marriage needs a priest to pronounce with authority "those whom God has joined together ...." then without that sacramental act - and its related acts in the marriage ceremony - perhaps something vital has been excluded from the marrying process.

The old phrase "without benefit of clergy" assumes that a marriage at the very least benefits from the priestly sacramental acts.

Lots of low church people do not have a sacramental view of marriage (or baptism) preferring to think in terms of "outward signs" at best, arguing that what happens in the heart is the heart of the matter. If you think that way, its perfectly possible to argue that a true commitment between a couple is "graced by God" at the point where the couples' hearts are changed towards one another. Similar arguments may be applied to conversion for example.

I tend to see things that way, but I'm conscious that the human capacity for self-deception means that sincerity is not always enough. Pragmatically at least, I think it helps folks to accept the seriousness of what they are doing to make solemn promises in public before witnesses. But if they only do that because its the done thing, are not moved by its seriousness, then I'm not sure what is going on. In those circumstances, I wonder whether they are.

All of which leaves fornication not just ambiguous for me, but rather obscure. I take "ambiguous" to mean "capable of two interpretations only ..."
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.

---

Do you think Jesus gave people carte blanche to sin?

---

quote:

---

If you don't, why do you assume that I would give other people carte blanche to sin, since I am clearly talking about following Jesus' example?

---

quote:

---

Did Jesus give the woman taken in adultery carte blanche to sin? Certainly not. Did he give those who were about to stone her carte blanche to judge her sinfulness to be greater than theirs? No.

---

quote:

---

So if I am trying to follow Jesus' example, should I go round pointing at people and naming them as fornicators? I think not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Would you therefor ignore sin, then? What if the sin were, say, exploitation of children in India? Or is it just sexual sins to which one should turn a blind eye?

---

I'd say we should focus our energies on those sins and wrongdoings that negatively affect people other than the sinner.

So no, most sexual sin wouldn't be included in that.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
St Paul would perhaps disagree with you there
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
That's his prerogative.
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Matt Black and Numpty, which couple would you say commits the greater sin:
The couple who blithely spends $50 to $100 on gasoline to go shopping on Black Friday, while knowning that other families in their neighbourhood have perhaps $40 to feed their family for an entire week?
OR
Their unmarried next door neighbours who stay home today and enjoy frolicking together in bed?

[still can't spell ]

[ 26. November 2010, 15:32: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
I wonder whether much of the difference in views here boils down to how one views sin. ISTM that some folks see sin as something that we do, while others see it more as a state of our being. The first group might point to a passage of scripture that seems to condemn sex out of wedlock, while the other might invoke the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. I don't doubt that we all are missing the boat, but perhaps we each are trying to catch a different ferry...

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Does it matter whether the sin is 'greater' or 'lesser'? It is right to seek to 'quantify' sin in that way?

[reply to SF]

[ 26. November 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
This whole thing puts me in mind of a couple of things. One is a blog post pointed out to me recently.

The other is that personally I would have been quite happy getting 'married' to Mrs Snags by going somewhere nice, with a handful of people who meant something to us both, and just stating publicly before them and God that "This is it". That would have meant no more or less to me in terms of commitment and 'rightness' than churching it up, and considerably more than going to the registry office.

However, we currently[1] live in a place and time where 'society', rightly or wrongly, attaches different meanings/values/interpretations to those who live together long term, and those who marry. So getting married in church was, for me, a) a form of public witness on both a faith and a relationship level and b) something of an obedience, rather than a prideful and largely pointless eff you.


[1]Although arguably less pronounced than 15 years ago when it was pertinent to me.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?

---

Well, it depends on if you believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit or not. If no, then they are only violating human traditions. If yes, then they are violating more than human traditions.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?

---

Well, it depends on if you believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit or not. If no, then they are only violating human traditions. If yes, then they are violating more than human traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I think His universal position was "sin no more".

So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's his prerogative.

---

[ 26. November 2010, 16:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
@ Matt Black - which bit of Jesus' parable about motes and beams, or his condition that those who are without sin should cast the first stone, are you having trouble with?

Is it all just too simple for someone as highly intelligent as you?



Although I know plenty of Christians who believe they are called to go round pointing out other people's sins, since this will in some way save them, my reading of Jesus' teachings is that we are very definitely to address the totality of sin in the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

It's my observation that most people who feel called to denounce sexual sin do not feel quite as strongly about other sins which Jesus felt were dangerous.

Spiritual pride, for example, or a lack of mercy.

[ 26. November 2010, 16:46: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
... what is a marriage in biblical terms ? The marriage service did not spring up fully formed on the occasion of the resurrectoin of Christ. So how would a Christian have married in 100AD ?

If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
although I haven't conducted that many weddings.

---

Now, which of your beliefs would make people decide to find someone else to conduct their wedding? That you'd consider them to be fornicators because they live together already, or that you would expect one of the couple to be like a slave to the other?

---

I'll answer you when you present me with something I actually believe.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Welcome back to the thread. Do any of my unanswered questions to you above pass muster?
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Well, the marriage service we all know and love so well may be fairly novel in historical terms, but surely in OT times there must have been some sort of rite to distinguish wives from concubines - both of which were OK (-ish?) in the eyes of God.

What went on at Cana before the wine ran out? Did the Steward do the whole business or would there have been a priest or a Rabbi present?

[ETA Apart from You Know Who, I mean]

[ 26. November 2010, 17:25: Message edited by: pimple ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.

---

So if I am trying to follow Jesus' example, should I go round pointing at people and naming them as fornicators? I think not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
What went on at Cana before the wine ran out? Did the Steward do the whole business or would there have been a priest or a Rabbi present?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Welcome back to the thread. Do any of my unanswered questions to you above pass muster?

---

It would seem not

Mousethief, as pimple and Jessie Philips point out, there does seem to be a distinction between the wed and the unwed in the NT, though, does there not, even if we're not totally sure what it is?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mousethief, as pimple and Jessie Philips point out, there does seem to be a distinction between the wed and the unwed in the NT, though, does there not, even if we're not totally sure what it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

One can accomplish things in brothels?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Ah, Salvationist in that sense. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I don't think ceremonies matter one jot

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Matt Black and Numpty, which couple would you say commits the greater sin:
The couple who blithely spends $50 to $100 on gasoline to go shopping on Black Friday, while knowning that other families in their neighbourhood have perhaps $40 to feed their family for an entire week?
OR
Their unmarried next door neighbours who stay home today and enjoy frolicking together in bed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".

---

How, exactly, was the sex before the wedding different from the sex after the wedding?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Was John's baptism from heaven or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Was John's baptism from heaven or not?

---

That one's already been used, and the guy who delivered the line was in a whole different league to you.

(I'm still noting you choose to ignore my question...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Ah, Salvationist in that sense. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I don't think ceremonies matter one jot

---

What about coronation ceremonies? Perhaps we should do away with those too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Ah, Salvationist in that sense. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I don't think ceremonies matter one jot

---

What about coronation ceremonies? Perhaps we should do away with those too.

---

As I understand it the Queen became Queen at the moment of her father's death and not at the moment of the Coronation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That's why I suggested the analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Hi Numpty - I believe asked you why in this particular instance you felt that there needed to be a public rebuke to the couple in question over the presumed sexual relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That's why I suggested the analogy.

---

You suggested an analogy specifically because it was disanalagous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
You are quite right- I asked if you felt the rebuke should be public and this was the question about which I complained your answer was not sufficiently clear.

You "suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin" - it is clear from this you assume it has not occured. Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Could you post a link? I tried to find it, but couldn't.

---

quote:

---

If you want to argue that all of the apostles' teaching is a rule book for us to follow in obedience to Christ, then I am dying to find out how you interpret the 'handing-over-wayward-believers-to-Satan' instruction mentioned above in terms of contemporary orthopraxy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Could you please tell us what you think about each of these points yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Ah, Salvationist in that sense. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I don't think ceremonies matter one jot

---

What about coronation ceremonies? Perhaps we should do away with those too.

---

As I understand it the Queen became Queen at the moment of her father's death and not at the moment of the Coronation.

---

That's why I suggested the analogy. So what is the point of a Coronation Ceremony? Does it do anything? Does the coronation liturgy suggest that anything actually happens? The Marriage Liturgy certainly does suggest that something happens, and that 'something' is recognised in law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Can you confirm that in the case that as you assume William has been having a pre-marital sexual relationship then you suggest that the appropriate steps to take would be

- bishop rebukes William privately
- if ignored bishop rebukes again William in front of witnesses
- if ignored again bishop rebukes William in full public scrutiny?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If the Church took the discipline of its communicant members seriously then - in theory - yes. The same applies to Charles's adultery.

---

Why not go the whole hog and do the Biblical thing - have then stoned?



 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
FYI CofE Coronation Liturgy
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Could you post a link? I tried to find it, but couldn't.

---

Well the first one was to ask what Acts 2:42 and Mt 28:20 had to say about marriage. You sort of answered that by implying that they meant we should follow all of the apostles' teachings. So I said

quote:

---

If you want to argue that all of the apostles' teaching is a rule book for us to follow in obedience to Christ, then I am dying to find out how you interpret the 'handing-over-wayward-believers-to-Satan' instruction mentioned above in terms of contemporary orthopraxy

---

There's not a question mark, but there is a question, or two, there. If you want a more straightforward one, it would be: isn't your contemporary application of what you see as apostolic teaching selective?

---

I'd answer you by saying no it isn't. And the handing over to Satan thing, AFAIK, just means considering the person a non-Christian who is still in need to rescue marked by repentance and faith in Christ. Although, I don't want to go into that particular tangent.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I like the spellings - Catholick and Apostolick.


 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If the Church took the discipline of its communicant members seriously then - in theory - yes. The same applies to Charles's adultery.

---

Why not go the whole hog and do the Biblical thing - have then stoned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Can you confirm that in the case that as you assume William has been having a pre-marital sexual relationship then you suggest that the appropriate steps to take would be

- bishop rebukes William privately
- if ignored bishop rebukes again William in front of witnesses
- if ignored again bishop rebukes William in full public scrutiny?

---

If the Church took the discipline of its communicant members seriously then - in theory - yes. The same applies to Charles's adultery. Although I think the House of Bishops would be more appropriate, rather than 'full public scrutiny'.

---

quote:

---

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

(Extract of the oath I thought was interesting) *snip*

LET US PRAY

O Lord and heavenly Father,
the exalter of the humble and the strength of thy chosen,
who by anointing with Oil didst of old
make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets,
to teach and govern thy people Israel:
Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant ELIZABETH,
who by our office and ministry
is now to be anointed with this Oil,
Here the Archbishop is to lay his hand upon the Ampulla.
and consecrated Queen:
Strengthen her, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter;
Confirm and stablish her with thy free and princely Spirit,
the Spirit of wisdom and government,
the Spirit of counsel and ghostly strength,
the Spirit of knowledge and true godliness,
and fill her, O Lord, with the Spirit of thy holy fear,
now and for ever;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

the Archbishop shall anoint the Queen in the form of a cross:

On the palms of both hands, saying,
Be thy Hands anointed with holy Oil.

On the breast, saying,
Be thy Breast anointed with holy Oil.

On the crown of the head, saying,
Be thy Head anointed with holy Oil:
as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed:

And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Because Jesus Christ gave that particular teaching concerning sin in Matthew 18. Nowhere does Jesus teach that stoning is an appropriate means of church discipline.

---

quote:

---

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

---

I'm liking this...

[ 26. November 2010, 20:16: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by Lola (# 627) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Could you post a link? I tried to find it, but couldn't.

---

Well the first one was to ask what Acts 2:42 and Mt 28:20 had to say about marriage. You sort of answered that by implying that they meant we should follow all of the apostles' teachings. So I said

quote:

---

If you want to argue that all of the apostles' teaching is a rule book for us to follow in obedience to Christ, then I am dying to find out how you interpret the 'handing-over-wayward-believers-to-Satan' instruction mentioned above in terms of contemporary orthopraxy

---

There's not a question mark, but there is a question, or two, there. If you want a more straightforward one, it would be: isn't your contemporary application of what you see as apostolic teaching selective?

---

I'd answer you by saying no it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

---

I'm liking this...

---

I thought you would - that's why included the extract of the oath

However, back at the main discussion - you haven't told me why the ceremonies that exist now are essential when they didn't exist then, if you see what I mean ?
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:
Can you confirm that in the case that as you assume William has been having a pre-marital sexual relationship then you suggest that the appropriate steps to take would be

- bishop rebukes William privately
- if ignored bishop rebukes again William in front of witnesses
- if ignored again bishop rebukes William in full public scrutiny?

---

If the Church took the discipline of its communicant members seriously then - in theory - yes. The same applies to Charles's adultery. Although I think the House of Bishops would be more appropriate, rather than 'full public scrutiny'.

---

I'm not too clued up on the House of Bishops - if infomrmation on such an undertaking were available to enquirers then, given the interest in the royal family, this would equate to full public scrutiny whith attendant News of the World coverage. If not - why are we to suppose it has not occured?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
FYI CofE Coronation Liturgy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd answer you by saying no it isn't. And the handing over to Satan thing, AFAIK, just means considering the person a non-Christian who is still in need to rescue marked by repentance and faith in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
FYI CofE Coronation Liturgy

---

The presentation of her as Queen (III) took place BEFORE the oath - as well as almost everything else in the service.

Therefore she was already Queen. It wasn't a case of making the oaths and then having the Archbishop declare "I now pronounce you monarch".

---

quote:

---

And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
FYI CofE Coronation Liturgy

---

The presentation of her as Queen (III) took place BEFORE the oath - as well as almost everything else in the service.

Therefore she was already Queen. It wasn't a case of making the oaths and then having the Archbishop declare "I now pronounce you monarch".

---

I agree. The liturgy definitely says that the Queen enters the Church building. She is Queen before the anointing. However, at the anointing the Archbishop says:

quote:

---

And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

---

Does 'be thou' suggest that something 'sacramental' is happening? Is an inward, spiritual and ontological grace being signified outwardly in the anointing? What is actually happening at this point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd answer you by saying no it isn't. And the handing over to Satan thing, AFAIK, just means considering the person a non-Christian who is still in need to rescue marked by repentance and faith in Christ.

---

Lola is right. It strikes me that your approach to this text no less elastic than you claim other posters are being with the apostolic texts on marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]I suppose the best way of looking at it is that the Church is giving God's seal of approval to the monarch. The idea that you were the legitimate, God-appointed ruler was rather important - the divine right of kings and so forth. If the Church withheld blessing it was quite a blow to the legitimacy of your rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]I suppose the best way of looking at it is that the Church is giving God's seal of approval to the monarch. The idea that you were the legitimate, God-appointed ruler was rather important - the divine right of kings and so forth. If the Church withheld blessing it was quite a blow to the legitimacy of your rule.

---

I don't think the church is allowed to refuse to marry people on the basis that they are fornicators though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It seems to me that the anointing, blessing and consecration that takes place at the coronation should be understood to do something in real time, not just retrospectively. And I would say the same of the marriage vows said by the bride and groom at the wedding. By the saying of those words the couple are wedded. Or is that wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm not really jumping into this fight. But... Solemnization of Marriage. Not Creation of Marriage. Doesn't that suggest something?

Just saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The nub I suppose is this: when I - as the presiding minister - pronounce the couple man and wife I believe that I am proclaiming that an act of God has taken place in that ceremony as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made in the sight of almighty God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Do you think it would be possible for an Anglican to have the understanding I outline without being in conflict with the core teachings of their church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonahMan:
I think it must be possible.

An anglican minister friend of mine got married a few years ago to her long term partner, with their two teenage daughters in attendance.

Presumably she, her bishop and everyone else were happy with this as otherwise I imagine she wouldn't have been ordained whilst 'living in sin'.

---

I bet they didn't use the BCP.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I haven't looked at the evidence but it's been raised several times that through the middle ages and I presume well into the Protestant period of English history (let the reader adapt as required), only the rich would get married in the "with a priest" sense.

If it's true and the Church weren't going crazy to correct the matter (and I haven't seen anybody presenting counter-claims that they were) then I can only see the following options:

1. The Church didn't care about extra-marital sex unless it was also adultery
2. Common law marriages were accepted as valid
3. The Church didn't care about peasants.

Although some would like 1 to be true and 3 might well be jumped on by the green ink brigade I suspect 2 is the truth. One logical way of looking at this is that churches might have viewed common law marriages as valid but not sacramental unless and until they'd been solemnised, as I believe certain branches of the Church today view both civil marriages and those of alternative denominations.

Not saying that's the case, it's just speculation and I haven't even verified the data from which I jumped to a conclusion . But I'm interested to know what Numpty in particular thinks.
 

---

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonahMan:
I think it must be possible.

An anglican minister friend of mine got married a few years ago to her long term partner, with their two teenage daughters in attendance.

Presumably she, her bishop and everyone else were happy with this as otherwise I imagine she wouldn't have been ordained whilst 'living in sin'.

---

I bet they didn't use the BCP.

---

quote:

---

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
What think is key to this discussion is that the marriage is about God making or - as some suggest - God already having made two people one flesh: something which can be traced back to the lips of Jesus.

The nub I suppose is this: when I - as the presiding minister - pronounce the couple man and wife I believe that I am proclaiming that an act of God has taken place in that ceremony as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made in the sight of almighty God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
What think is key to this discussion is that the marriage is about God making or - as some suggest - God already having made two people one flesh: something which can be traced back to the lips of Jesus.

The nub I suppose is this: when I - as the presiding minister - pronounce the couple man and wife I believe that I am proclaiming that an act of God has taken place in that ceremony as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made in the sight of almighty God.

---

And if no minister proclaims it then God can't act? This sounds vaguely like a magic spell: commanding a spirit to take actions on your behalf. That must be an awesome amount of power, to be able to thwart the acts of God by simple inaction!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
What think is key to this discussion is that the marriage is about God making or - as some suggest - God already having made two people one flesh: something which can be traced back to the lips of Jesus.

The nub I suppose is this: when I - as the presiding minister - pronounce the couple man and wife I believe that I am proclaiming that an act of God has taken place in that ceremony as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made in the sight of almighty God.

---

And if no minister proclaims it then God can't act? This sounds vaguely like a magic spell: commanding a spirit to take actions on your behalf. That must be an awesome amount of power, to be able to thwart the acts of God by simple inaction!

---

I think probably the key word in that sentence is "proclaim." I don't think "has taken place" is really at issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So it's really the couple casting the spell, compelling God to act "as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made"? I guess the minister is on hand, as a God expert, to verify (proclaim) that the spell worked right. Just so long as some mortal agent is bossing God around it all works out, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So it's really the couple casting the spell, compelling God to act "as a direct result of the vows and covenant that they have made"? I guess the minister is on hand, as a God expert, to verify (proclaim) that the spell worked right. Just so long as some mortal agent is bossing God around it all works out, I guess.

---

I wouldn't think so. In the words of the Prayer Book again, the couple is made up of two people whom "God hath joined together." God is therefore not in any way compelled, but has been the director of the action all along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Going back to the original question, doesn't this position imply a certain number of cases where God has joined people without the formal ceremony of a wedding? After all, the only way we can assert He can act without humans nudging Him along in this kind of situation is if He's actually done so. In other words, a certain percentage of those dismissed by the Church as "fornicators" are in fact married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My question is why try to look at the practices of the Old Testament and early modern Europe as a way of avoiding what the Church has practiced for at least 500 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

---

so, in your opinion, if a marriage does not fulfil this 'first' principle, either the marriage is a failure, or simply not a marriage at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
These are the words of the Preface from the Book of Common Prayer:

quote:

---

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't recall the exact dates, but the period of time when UK law absolutely required a wedding to be conducted in a church didn't start until some time in the 1700s and ended during the 1800s. Which doesn't seem to stop people asserting that weddings absolutely are a church thing, God ordained, and have never been otherwise.

---

quote:

---

2. A promise of marriage, followed by a sexual relationship, was regarded as a legal marriage - but this had to be backed up by some kind of proof, such as a written promise of marriage, or an oath sworn before witnesses.
3. Marriages 'by habit and repute' were also legal if a couple usually presented themselves in public as husband and wife, even if no formal declaration of marriage was made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I haven't looked at the evidence but it's been raised several times that through the middle ages and I presume well into the Protestant period of English history (let the reader adapt as required), only the rich would get married in the "with a priest" sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

Do they have a problem with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Here's a question. Why do Evangelicals not cohabit?

Earlier up-thread Boogie proposed a cohabiting couple who then got married but whose life was in most respects the same, and asked why they could have sex after the wedding but not before. Put in those terms the Evangelical position is always going to look arbitrary, but ISTM that from an Evangelical perspective the question is hypothetical, because Evangelicals don't cohabit.

To put it another way: these debates sometimes suggest that, for an Evangelical, the only practical consequence of marriage is that you're allowed to have sex. I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

Do they have a problem with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

---

so, in your opinion, if a marriage does not fulfil this 'first' principle, either the marriage is a failure, or simply not a marriage at all?

---

I've asked before on the Ship what the Biblical basis is for this claim about the purpose of marriage. I can't say I got any terribly convincing answers.

It also rather smacks of a time when a woman's role was seen very much in terms of producing heirs, and that childlessness was either a failure on her part or an outright curse from God.

It seems to me that the notion that 'marriage is the best environment for children' got changed somewhere into 'children are the reason for marriage'. One sees this even with less religious couples, who live together unmarried but then have a wedding once children have arrived, or are about to arrive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

Do they have a problem with it?

---

In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

---

so, in your opinion, if a marriage does not fulfil this 'first' principle, either the marriage is a failure, or simply not a marriage at all?

---

I've asked before on the Ship what the Biblical basis is for this claim about the purpose of marriage. I can't say I got any terribly convincing answers.

It also rather smacks of a time when a woman's role was seen very much in terms of producing heirs, and that childlessness was either a failure on her part or an outright curse from God.

It seems to me that the notion that 'marriage is the best environment for children' got changed somewhere into 'children are the reason for marriage'. One sees this even with less religious couples, who live together unmarried but then have a wedding once children have arrived, or are about to arrive.

---

Pretty much my view. Numpty obviously considers it vital that what the BCP says about marriage is what marriage should really be about; and I was interested in what he thought of a marriage that didn't have as its first principle 'the procreation of children'. He doesn't appear to be interested enough, however, to answer the question.

---

quote:

---

The pastor of their church didn't believe that this was what they were actually doing and treated them like they were living together in the regular way. This included expressing concern that they were involved with youth work and not allowing them to start any more 'ministries' until they had the wedding.

---

Maybe he was aware of God's Word that informs the Christian that they must avoid all 'appearance of evil' as well as evil itself. And before someone says that fornication isn't such a thing, then remember that Jesus used it in the same list as murder, just because 21st Century life has hurtled towards Sodom & Gom' doesn't mean God has to suddenly approve because society now says it is cool with it.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Ah, abstain from every appearance of evil. I believe that to be one of the most misinterpreted passages in the New Testament. The mistake wouldn't be made by anybody with a Greek New Testament and a rudimentary understanding of Koine Greek. But, Fundies have to find some way to justify their extreme legalism and self righteousness. It usually involves prooftexting.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Going back to an earlier point, it's really not that difficult to find out about Jewish marriage in Biblical times (google is your friend!) and by extension what went on at the wedding in Cana.

Ancient Jewish Marriage from My Jewish Learning

Basically, there was a betrothal which involved the legal contract and the paying of the brideprice. The couple were then legally married, but did not cohabit or have sex.

Then there was the wedding, about a year later, which involved a large, noisy and happy procession from the bride's home to the groom's, a loud drunken festive party, and at some point the bride and groom departing to bed to consumate the marriage.


(Oh, and Mousethief? Divorce was much more difficult than saying "I divorce you" three times. And expensive)
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
In an ideal world, the lion would lie down with the lamb, we'd have beaten our swords into ploughs and pruning hooks long ago, we'd act with charity toward our local and international neighbours etc. But the rich lions of our societies eat the poor helpless lambs, we build very expensive bombs and drop them from very expensive airplanes on people we don't really know and certainly don't love. And we get wrapped up about a young couple who like to sleep together? I'd think the prince's serving in her majesties killing forces is a lot more important than whether he humps his future wife myself. I suspect God is more unhappy with killing than he is with a little non-procreative sex. I know I am.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 


Ah, a view of God right out of Bruce Almighty. Jim Carrey isn't God. You aren't like God. Anything less than perfection falls short of the glory of God. We will never be perfect this side of the eschaton. However, arguing that because worse things happen in the world God doesn't care about our personal behavior is a cop out.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
It is supposed to be a spiritual union at some level I think - but I doubt that happens instantly. Which I guess is one of the reasons people I think people live together or sleep together before marriage - they are getting to the point of unity. They then choose to have the ceremony when they think they've got there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
(Oh, and Mousethief? Divorce was much more difficult than saying "I divorce you" three times. And expensive)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Well if you can annul a marriage that hasn't been consummated, that suggested that sexual intercourse is considered fairly key.

It is supposed to be a spiritual union at some level I think - but I doubt that happens instantly. Which I guess is one of the reasons people I think people live together or sleep together before marriage - they are getting to the point of unity. They then choose to have the ceremony when they think they've got there.

---

quote:

---

Ah, abstain from every appearance of evil. I believe that to be one of the most misinterpreted passages in the New Testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Beeswax

quote:

---

Ah, abstain from every appearance of evil. I believe that to be one of the most misinterpreted passages in the New Testament.

---

Or should that be earwax?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think this does justice to the Evangelical concept of marriage, because if that's all there was to it, then Evangelicals would have no problem with chaste cohabitation.

---

Do they have a problem with it?

---

In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.

---

quote:

---

As an example, I knew a couple who were living together, got engaged, became Christian (in that order) and decided that they would stop having sex until they were married. However, they continued to live under the same roof because practically and financially that was the sensible thing to do. The pastor of their church didn't believe that this was what they were actually doing and treated them like they were living together in the regular way. This included expressing concern that they were involved with youth work and not allowing them to start any more 'ministries' until they had the wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Zoey, the youngsters I know in this situation want time to save up for a posh wedding. They put great store on having a really 'special' day, which (they feel) costs more than they can yet afford.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lola:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Zoey, the youngsters I know in this situation want time to save up for a posh wedding. They put great store on having a really 'special' day, which (they feel) costs more than they can yet afford.

---

In my acquaintance this is really a cover story for the fact that the man hasn't asked her.

---

quote:

---

There is also a common feeling that marriage somehow binds a woman to unwanted or demeaning obligations (contrary to popular fiction its more often men who want to get married and women who don't, just as within a couple its more often the man who wants more children and the women who doesn't) I've met some women who seem almost to regard marriage as shameful, an admission of inadequacy or defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
What went on at Cana before the wine ran out? Did the Steward do the whole business or would there have been a priest or a Rabbi present?

---

You're projecting a wholly modern understanding of the commencement of the wedded state back into first century Jerusalem (or Galilee -- I'm not going to go look it up). Fact is we don't know, at least from the Bible, how Jews wed one another in those days. We have been told (well, I have) that a man could divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times. They don't seem to have been to particular about the same kind of niceties we are today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The notion of the Monarch being a paragon of civic and moral virtue only emerged with Queen Victoria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
There has always been marriage. Sex outside of marriage has always been possible. It certainly was in the Old Testament and was forbidden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But this is not the way I'm seeing it done all around me - I can't think of any wedding I've been to in the last 5 years (and I have been to lots) where anything has been home made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But this is not the way I'm seeing it done all around me - I can't think of any wedding I've been to in the last 5 years (and I have been to lots) where anything has been home made.

---

Within the last five years, our reception was in church; our three-tier cake was made by us and iced by her; the beer came from the brewery and the food from a combination of M&S, Waitrose and Sainsbury's (and the butcher for a game pie). It was a very fine day.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ah, abstain from every appearance of evil. I believe that to be one of the most misinterpreted passages in the New Testament. The mistake wouldn't be made by anybody with a Greek New Testament and a rudimentary understanding of Koine Greek. But, Fundies have to find some way to justify their extreme legalism and self righteousness. It usually involves prooftexting.

---

quote:

---

4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The writer also seems to suggest that there are two main ways to dishonour marriage sexually: adultery (i.e. sexual sin which directly affects a marriage) and sexual immorality (i.e sexual sin outside of - or without regard for - marriage).

So, regardless of the actual mechanisms by which marriage is understood to occur, it is fair to say that marriage as an institution is dishonoured by adultery and extra-marital sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
sexual immorality (i.e sexual sin outside of - or without regard for - marriage).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
i.e

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I really don't see the attraction of living with someone as opposed to marrying them. But that's because in order for me to change my life radically enough in order to live with someone, I would require to give and receive the kind of commitment that would only effectively be covered by the marriage vows!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
So, regardless of the actual mechanisms by which marriage is understood to occur, it is fair to say that marriage as an institution is dishonoured by adultery and extra-marital sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoey:
So those in their late 20s to mid 30s aren't of marrying age????

Living with housemates is different to living with a partner, I would think.

I'm in my 20s, have lived over 2 years completely on my own (I'm an introvert with various 'issues' - having my own place is admittedly on the expensive side, but much better for my mental health), have lived many more years than that essentially as an individual (lodger, single person living in student accommodation, etc). I would find living with a partner a huge leap, but I'm surprised to hear that I'm no longer of marrying age before I've even hit 30.

(I can see that couples who meet at uni might never live 'alone' (either as a 1-person-household or with non-romantic housemates), but not every couple meets at uni. (I and many of my friends have been to uni. Not sure how the situation pans out with groups of people who don't generally go to uni.))

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I really don't see the attraction of living with someone as opposed to marrying them. But that's because in order for me to change my life radically enough in order to live with someone, I would require to give and receive the kind of commitment that would only effectively be covered by the marriage vows!

---

For most people of 'marryin' age,' though, there isn't a major life change. Most have been living alone for short times if ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think what I'm outlining - for myself - is my attitude towards cohabitation. Agreeing to live as a permanent partner with another person, where one merges ones existence with someone else's.

If it really isn't a major life change moving from a single independent life to a life spent with a committed life partner (albeit unmarried) I can only imagine that the 'couple' aren't getting the partnership thing quite right!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
So, regardless of the actual mechanisms by which marriage is understood to occur, it is fair to say that marriage as an institution is dishonoured by adultery and extra-marital sex.

---

This is quite circular. Or maybe that's not quite the right term -- anyway it is relying on an understanding of the term "sexual immorality" that includes extra-marital sex. But the very point in question in this thread was whether or not extra-marital sex is immoral. Quoting Paul saying that "sexual immorality" is bad doesn't answer the question, since we don't know if Paul's "sexual immorality" included extra-marital sex or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. I'd say that the assertion that πόρνος doesn't include pre-marital sex begs the question because such an assertion doesn't have the support of tradition, reason or (in my opinion) scripture. Or personal spiritual experience for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. I'd say that the assertion that πόρνος doesn't include pre-marital sex begs the question because such an assertion doesn't have the support of tradition, reason or (in my opinion) scripture. Or personal spiritual experience for that matter.

---

I'm saying scripture doesn't say either way. The passage you quote from Hebrews does not come out and say that premarital sex is pornos. You're reading that into it. What else you got?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoey:
I can understand co-habitation without ever marrying because one has ideological objections to marriage. However, in my own case, given that I see marriage as a good set-up, if I were to meet somebody I wanted to commit to, why on earth would I cohabit with them rather than just marrying them? If I weren't commited enough to marry them, why would I merge my life with their's in all the ways mentioned above (which seems to me a major undertaking somewhat on a par with marriage but without the vows to permanence, explicit commitment, etc)?

Does that make any sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoey:
I can understand co-habitation without ever marrying because one has ideological objections to marriage. However, in my own case, given that I see marriage as a good set-up, if I were to meet somebody I wanted to commit to, why on earth would I cohabit with them rather than just marrying them? If I weren't commited enough to marry them, why would I merge my life with their's in all the ways mentioned above (which seems to me a major undertaking somewhat on a par with marriage but without the vows to permanence, explicit commitment, etc)?

Does that make any sense?

---

That makes perfect sense, thank you, and in a lot of ways I agree with you.

To be clear, I don't think the Evangelical position is irrational (I realise you yourself are not Evangelical) - I just think it's not properly discussed, because there's a tendency to focus exclusively on sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Numpty, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of interpretative faith revealed by saying 'is' (in italics, even) but then tracing the route using 'by extension' and 'by implication'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Numpty, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of interpretative faith revealed by saying 'is' (in italics, even) but then tracing the route using 'by extension' and 'by implication'.

---

I don't think, particularly because other Apostolic teaching positively affirms the place of sex in marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Numpty, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of interpretative faith revealed by saying 'is' (in italics, even) but then tracing the route using 'by extension' and 'by implication'.

---

I don't think, particularly because other Apostolic teaching positively affirms the place of sex in marriage.

---

Well what do you mean by the place of sex in marriage? That's a vague phrase.

As far I can see, the particular verse you cited can be read as 'if you have a marriage, don't have sex outside of it'. It doesn't necessarily tell you what to do if you don't have a marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I suppose I am arguing that if you lived with someone and had a sexual relationship with them - then in biblical times people would define that as marriage anyway. Regardless of the presence or absence of a ceremony. I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.

---

• By not committing adultery with a married person (as per Chorister's suggestion)
• By not having sex and remaining virgins (as per the Apostle Paul)

quote:

---

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I can think of two ways in which unmarried people are called to honour marriage.

• By not committing adultery with a married person (as per Chorister's suggestion)
• By not having sex and remaining virgins (as per the Apostle Paul)

---

• By not committing adultery with a married person (as per Chorister's suggestion)
• By not having sex and remaining virgins (as per the Apostle Paul
• By getting married and enjoying a passionate sex life

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, three in fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps he was someone else's husband already?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The second point above is, I believe, supported by 1 Corinthians 7:8 & 9:

quote:

---

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Because, as an Anglican, I accept the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

Faith isn't just about belief. Faith is also about how life is lived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.

---

It did exist, it was called πορνεία and ἐγκρατεύομαι (egkrateuomai - to control oneself, to exercise self-control) was (and still is) the solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Ahem, if I may point out, that 'all things necessary for salvation are contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments' does not mean that 'all things contained in the HS of the O&NTs are necessary for salvation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I suppose I am arguing that if you lived with someone and had a sexual relationship with them - then in biblical times people would define that as marriage anyway. Regardless of the presence or absence of a ceremony. I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Most straight couples in the UK could marry if they want to - if they neither get married according to society's rules nor call themselves married under some other set of rules, then why should we apply a label to their relationship which they have not chosen for themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But why should they be called sinful fornicators if they choose to live together rather than marry?

A couple who live together and care well for each other and their children should not be condemned by anyone, least of all the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But why should they be called sinful fornicators if they choose to live together rather than marry?

A couple who live together and care well for each other and their children should not be condemned by anyone, least of all the Church.

---

You are conflating the very different issues of what the Church should teach and what it should condemn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think what I'm outlining - for myself - is my attitude towards cohabitation. Agreeing to live as a permanent partner with another person, where one merges ones existence with someone else's.

If it really isn't a major life change moving from a single independent life to a life spent with a committed life partner (albeit unmarried) I can only imagine that the 'couple' aren't getting the partnership thing quite right!

---

But is that "agreement" actually what happens? In my admittedly limited experience, it seems to be that a couple often move in together without any agreement of permanence. In fact that seems to be one of the "selling points" of co-habitation - a flexible "let's see how it goes" attitude. Then as time goes on, it gradually morphs (without anyone actually saying so) into that permanent commitment you were talking about. And I think that sometimes this is the point at which long-term co-habiting couples then get married - a sort of "well, we're virtually married now anyhow, why not admit it?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.

---

An evangelical friend of mine bought a house with her husband-to-be a couple of months before their wedding, and they both moved in because they couldn't afford the mortgage AND the rent on one of two flats in which they were living. I'm pretty certain that they lived chastely for those months.

---

That reminds me of a vicar I knew who was making a big deal about a couple who wished to get married. They had been attending the church as a cohabiting couple for a long time and now wanted to get married. The vicar was trying to figure out what was the way with the most integrity - eg, tell them to get a civil union with a blessing afterwards; recommend they occupy different accommodations til the marriage.

It all came down to the fact, of course, that they were, presumably, sexually active. Ironically, if they had been sexually active but not cohabiting, no-one would've batted an eyelid or instigated an inquisition. I thought he was giving himself more problems than he needed to deal with!
 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
My brother and his 2nd wife "co-habited" for a while before they got married. Not only co-habited but bought a house together. They were (and are) Roman Catholics. Their problem was not co-habitation but rather the difficulty in getting his first marriage ecclesiastically annulled. (It should have been a slam-dunk since the 1st wedding was practically a shotgun wedding rushed into, but that's another kettle of fish) But the interesting thing is that their (Roman Catholic) pastor who worked with them through the whole annulment attempt process that was going nowhere finally suggested that they get married in the Episcopal church, which they did. An Episcopal priest presided, and the Roman Catholic priest took part in the service as well. I know because I was best man.

But co-habitation wasn't an issue for either priest. And my brother and his wife have been happily married for a quarter century.

[ 30. November 2010, 18:49: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Zoey, the youngsters I know in this situation want time to save up for a posh wedding. They put great store on having a really 'special' day, which (they feel) costs more than they can yet afford.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.

---

It did exist, it was called πορνεία and ἐγκρατεύομαι (egkrateuomai - to control oneself, to exercise self-control) was (and still is) the solution.

---

That is certainly your assertion, but what Paul actually meany by porneia is very much at the heart of this debate. Etymologically, there is a linkage between porneia and prostitution, but, of course, etymology is not meaning. If I had to take a punt on it, I would guess that, from the context, Paul condemned sexual behaviour outside or within marriage which involved prostitution (explicitly cultic, since idolatry seems to have been on his mind, but almost certainly commercial as well), and by extension any sexual conduct that was demeaning or exploitative. But a punt is all it would be. I'm fairly confident, though, that he didn't mean people who were in a long term, committed relationship. There is nothing whatever in the context that suggests that "living together" was what he had in mind.

---

quote:

---

So do parts of the Church in my experience.

They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.

---

It's known as something called discernment

[code]

[ 03. December 2010, 01:18: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Numpty, as you recall from my post, I did not restrict porneia only to prostitution. I think it's pretty clear that Paul had a more extended use for the term. But equally, it is not at all demonstrable that he used it as a catch all for all and every kind of sexual activity outside of marriage. The use of "porneia" in I Cor 7:2 is quite compatible with Paul using the word to mean prostitution, or the wider promiscuity, as well as the reading you take. No theological gymnastics there, just the (ok, a) plain reading of the text. Verse 9 does not even mention porneia; the plain meaning of the text there is that sexual fulfilment in marriage is a better than allowing one's life to be controlled by the raging emotions of sexual frustration (with a little bit of bachelor smugness perhaps thrown in ). I remain unconvinced that there was a complete break in Paul's mind between his mental concept of "porneia" and prostitution, though I accept that he used the term more widely. As such, I think it highly unlikely that he would have thought that a long term marriage-like sexual relationship could be categorised as "porneia".
 

---

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :
 
(I am not a theologian or Greek scholar. However, I have been wondering, in the course of this thread recently, whether CmN believes that sexual relations within marriage can ever be harmful or negative?)
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:

quote:

---

So do parts of the Church in my experience.

They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.

---

It's known as something called discernment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoey:
(I am not a theologian or Greek scholar. However, I have been wondering, in the course of this thread recently, whether CmN believes that sexual relations within marriage can ever be harmful or negative?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:

quote:

---

So do parts of the Church in my experience.

They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.

---

It's known as something called discernment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think it highly unlikely that he would have thought that a long term marriage-like sexual relationship could be categorised as "porneia".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But all you're saying is that the New Testament describes marriage as good and prostitution as bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?

If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.

God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?

If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.

God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.

---

I disagree. Here's why. Paul doesn't counsel widows and unmarried people (ἄγαμος) to just have sex and not worry about "burning with passion". He doesn't say, look if you've started having sex with your boyfriend then that's OK. No, he says "get married". He says that ἄγαμος (unmarried) should become (γαμέω) married. How? By having a wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?

If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.

God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.

---

I disagree. Here's why. Paul doesn't counsel widows and unmarried people (ἄγαμος) to just have sex and not worry about "burning with passion". He doesn't say, look if you've started having sex with your boyfriend then that's OK. No, he says "get married". He says that ἄγαμος (unmarried) should become (γαμέω) married. How? By having a wedding.

---

And that very last bit is where your argument is in trouble. Because, as already shown in this thread, 'having a wedding' was NOT the way that most people became husband and wife for large parts of our history - centuries and centuries during which people became husband and wife without the kind of formal wedding ceremony we now talk about.

And that's Boogie's point in her post: 'married' in God's eyes does NOT necessarily mean 'has gone through earthly wedding ceremony'. A wedding is not a marriage. All those Bible passages you have just been quoted talk about marriage. They do not talk about 'having a wedding'. It does NOT say that if you're single and can't control your passions, it's best that you 'have a wedding'.

---

quote:

---

Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie

quote:

---

Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.

---

So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm saying that the bible says that prostitution is bad because it mocks marriage. I'll say it again, the bible says that prostitution is bad because it makes a mockery not of sexual monogamy but the joining of two people by God as husband and wife (i.e. marriage).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie

quote:

---

Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.

---

So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
(The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage", which gets round the problem of inaccuracies in the apostolic witness, but rather destroys the argument that porneia means "all non-marital sexual activity".)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage"...

---

Do they really?

If so its a clear case of deliberately mistranslating the Bible to fit post-Apostolic developments in doctrine. Bordering on dishonest.
Much more so than the comparitively trivial business of "virgin" vs "young girl" some people seem to think invalidates the NIV. A reason to be wary of using NJB as your main Bible translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
It's becoming quite common hereabouts for the couple to only decide to get married when they already have a baby (or decide to delay the marriage ceremony until after the baby has been born). When the couple go up to the altar after the main marriage service is over, the vicar asks for their baby to be brought up to the altar as well, so they can all be blessed together.

Recently, we had a marriage with baptism, so it was all done at once while the guests were already in church, to save them all coming back again for the christening. I did wonder whether they were going to go for a hat-trick and bury Great Uncle Herbert at the same time!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.

A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie

quote:

---

Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.

---

So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?

---

Well, given that St Matthew (5:32) presents Jesus allowing divorce in the case of porneia, whereas St Mark (10: 1-12) has Jesus forbidding divorce in all circumstances whatsoever, it's clear that someone got confused, though I'd be inclined to say it was the Evangelists ...

(The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage", which gets round the problem of inaccuracies in the apostolic witness, but rather destroys the argument that porneia means "all non-marital sexual activity".)

---

Well, not destroy perhaps. William Temple claimed that this exception referred to the case where one of the partners was unchaste prior to the marriage and was thus entering into it under false pretences. The marriage would thus be illicit because of the porneia.

I guess it would make sense for Matthew to record this exception for internal consistency, since he also records (and seems to approve of) Joseph planning to set aside Mary for exactly this reason.

A strained interpretation perhaps - but not obviously absurd.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I would've thought two cohabiting adults getting married (leave aside their 12 children being baptised after as a side issue, please ) would, in the case of these two, prevent further fornication on their part.

Sounds like a clash of Ideals and Reality. 'Let he/she who is perfect ...'
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.

A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.

---

So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
... Hmmm, that raises a question: if one applies for an annulment in the RCC and it is granted, has one been fornicating for the preceding howeverlong?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
and any children would be illegitimate.

---

quote:

---

What about the children? Will annulment mean they become illegitimate?

No. In Canon Law children are legitimate if their parents are married at the time the child’s birth, even if that marriage is later annulled. Obviously the decisions of the Tribunal have no effect on the law of England, and so they are considered legitimate in civil law before the annulment is granted, they will remain so afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Salvation Army, AFAICT, advocate a totally spiritualized approach to the dominical sacraments in which the outward and visible signs are seen as unnecessary adjuncts to the gracious spiritual reality. That is what you are suggesting concerning marriage.

---

Are you under the impression that the outward and visible sign of the sacrament of marriage is the marriage ceremony, or anything in it???

 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
and any children would be illegitimate.

---

No, the children would be regarded as legitimate for that's a civil rather than canon thing. See the Diocese of Shrewsbury, for example:

quote:

---

What about the children? Will annulment mean they become illegitimate?

No. In Canon Law children are legitimate if their parents are married at the time the child’s birth, even if that marriage is later annulled. Obviously the decisions of the Tribunal have no effect on the law of England, and so they are considered legitimate in civil law before the annulment is granted, they will remain so afterwards.

---

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Salvation Army, AFAICT, advocate a totally spiritualized approach to the dominical sacraments in which the outward and visible signs are seen as unnecessary adjuncts to the gracious spiritual reality. That is what you are suggesting concerning marriage.

---

Are you under the impression that the outward and visible sign of the sacrament of marriage is the marriage ceremony, or anything in it???

---

quote:

---

Numpty asks:
Are you suggesting that the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.

A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.

---

So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?

---

This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been. I'm also saying that such a view - which is the Apostolic view - is objectively correct and bound by culture or time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Numpty asks:
Are you suggesting that the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse?

---

Yes, so I have been taught; and, aside from the risk of pregnancy, this teaching constitutes the best argument against extramarital sex that I can think of.

If you'd like to disabuse me of this scruple, feel free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gurdur:
Some people would be far better off having a fuck rather than blathering on and on about it.

Let's face it, fornication is pretty small stuff in the great scheme of life. The amount of attention being paid to what others do for fun is way out of proportion to its actual effects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gurdur:
Some people would be far better off having a fuck rather than blathering on and on about it.

Let's face it, fornication is pretty small stuff in the great scheme of life. The amount of attention being paid to what others do for fun is way out of proportion to its actual effects.

---

There are other threads to read if this one doesn't suit your fancy. This one happens to be about fornication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.

A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.

---

So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?

---

This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been. I'm also saying that such a view - which is the Apostolic view - is objectively correct and [not]* bound by culture or time.

---

I would have thought the main argument is whether God considers cohabitation sinful. Frankly, I don't give a shit what a first century Palestinian would have considered sinful, unless it's the same as what God considers sinful.

---

quote:

---

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Marriage is advised for those who 'cannot control themselves".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Marriage is advised for those who 'cannot control themselves".

---

No it isn't. Paul said it was "better to marry than to burn".

---

quote:

---

But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
It's rather surprising how little attention the matter of what about the kid(s) has received in this thread. It is a terrible thing when a mother and child are abandoned by the father and left without support: terrible for them, and often terrible for their neighbors as well. Sexual morality exists primarily to prevent this situation. Everything else is a minor distraction by comparison.

---

quote:

---

But if God only made the original man in his own image, and the Fall, cancelled that image, then what part of the original man was not in God's image which permitted the disobedience in the first place? Or is God an imperfect template for the image, which permits the possibility of disobedience and sin?

---

Well that's an excellent question(s) and one that I've not seen before in the 40 odd years of my Christian life, so first of all thanks for asking it - although I note there are a cluster of them!

Ok, we know from 1 Thess 5v23 that man is Spirit, Soul and Body. We also know from John 4v24 that "God is Spirit.." so therefore we can conclude that the original man - Adam - was made with a spirit that could interact fully with His Creator (as much as his created mind would allow) and that the parts that were not like God were His soul and body, this make him human in nature and God's attributes make Him Divine by nature.

Now onto your suggested imperfection and the make up of man - man was created with the ability to choose and you'll recall the phrase that "God is Love". You will also know that love involves choice, if the most attractive boy/ girl in our high school were attracted to us, we were extremely fortunate (maybe), yet the reality is that they got to choose too

So God, despite being Almighty, would have not benefited from programming us to love Him, that love would have been as worthless a love as us hypnotizing that attractive schoolmate and forcing them to live the rest of their lives with us.

So God, being a God that not only is love but seeks our GENUINE love too, had to make us as people who could choose. Our first generation made their choice and the rest is history as they say, we all DIED IN ADAM. But God wasn't finished with us 'dead' creatures, and this coming season and plan - predicted as early as Genesis 3v15 - was the start of His loving response to our situation, of course as far as we go and many others, we may not be willing to admit we do need His
 

---

Posted by ByHisBlood (# 16018) on :
 
Sorry, wrong thread and the 34 nano-second edit time beat me too
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Christian marriage, properly understood, is the antidote to infidelity because it is a parable of the permanent relationship between Christ and the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Sorry, wrong thread and the 34 nano-second edit time beat me too

---

Never mind! I appreciate the answer which I'll comment on, on the other thread
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Christian marriage, properly understood, is the antidote to infidelity because it is a parable of the permanent relationship between Christ and the Church.

---

IIRC, the relationship between Christ and the Church is a parable from marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, you're wrong. It's t'other way around. Read Ephesians 5.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0