Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

On whether or not premarital sex is biblically permissible

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    That wouldn't change whether it is a sin or not.
    Originally posted by https://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/487825901/no-you-re-not-in-a-common-law-marriage-after-7-years-of-dating
    Couples may eschew a formal, licensed marriage for any number of reasons, like hesitating to make a public commitment or never getting around to making it official. That means you may be passing on the big expensive party or the dreamy walk down the aisle, but common-law marriage is as real and legal as marriage gets. It means you are eligible for all of the economic and legal goodies afforded to couples with marriage licenses — like tax breaks and inheritance rights.
    The actual rules for common law marriage vary from place to place, and from time to time. In South Australia it used to be that if a couple claimed to be married, the claim was true. (that may have changed in recent decades.)

    Claiming that something is a sin on the basis of an interpretation of a passage which does not explicitly make that declaration is unsafe - particularly when, as with premarital sex (with no intention to separate from the partner), the scriptures declare that "the two become one flesh" ... that being the closest that scripture comes to defining marriage.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post



      The actual rules for common law marriage vary from place to place, and from time to time. In South Australia it used to be that if a couple claimed to be married, the claim was true. (that may have changed in recent decades.)

      Claiming that something is a sin on the basis of an interpretation of a passage which does not explicitly make that declaration is unsafe - particularly when, as with premarital sex (with no intention to separate from the partner), the scriptures declare that "the two become one flesh" ... that being the closest that scripture comes to defining marriage.
      What are you trying to argue here? It looks like you're tacitly admitting that premarital sex is wrong, but trying to justify it anyway by redefining marriage.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        What are you trying to argue here? It looks like you're tacitly admitting that premarital sex is wrong, but trying to justify it anyway by redefining marriage.
        I argue that requiring a couple to separate
        when they have sexually consummated their relationship

        is a command that they divorce.

        1/ Even when it is sex between a prostitute and a client, the couple become one flesh.
        2/ The two becoming one flesh is by God's decree. (argument in opposition can be mounted but not, in my opinion, sustained.)
        3/ What God has joined together, let no man separate.

        Who has the right to demand that the couple separate?
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by myth View Post

          Yeah, I think reading that text as too literally is problematic.

          John 4:18 is interesting for the differentiation of marital status. I thought that story had a section where Jesus tells her to "go and sin no more" or something. But reading it now, I see no such injunction by Jesus. Which is, frankly, interesting given our conversation. Without his condemnation, the story reads as if the revealing of her activities is simply a demonstration of his knowledge. It seems clear her relationship with the man doesn't qualify as a marriage. I'm not sure if reading cohabitation is justified, since the Greek word means "to have" and one of the possible translations is "to have intercourse with", among others.

          I'll have to look to see if the other Gospels have the same pericope.
          Yes, in all fairness, it is not explicitly said what the nature of the relationship is between is woman and the man she "currently has", and whether they lived together isn't strictly relevant to the topic at hand. I think it strongly implies a sexual component.

          The passage comes up fairly often in the context of the debate over remarriage and whether second/etc. marriages truly count as marriages but I thought it would be interesting to mention here.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            I argue that requiring a couple to separate
            when they have sexually consummated their relationship


            is a command that they divorce.

            1/ Even when it is sex between a prostitute and a client, the couple become one flesh.
            2/ The two becoming one flesh is by God's decree. (argument in opposition can be mounted but not, in my opinion, sustained.)
            3/ What God has joined together, let no man separate.

            Who has the right to demand that the couple separate?
            What do you make of the differentiation between wives and concubines in the Old Testament?
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              What do you make of the differentiation between wives and concubines in the Old Testament?
              Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
              5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
              Matthew 19:8 “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.




              Was permission to divorce the only concession made in the law?

              If marriage-by-ceremony was the only acceptable basis for a union, it seems kind of strange that a not-quite marriage should have been lawful; but then, Judges 20:4 refers to a concubine's partner as her husband.

              Given the fact of legitimate concubinage in the OT, does OT law show that marriage-by-ceremony is the only legitimate basis for a sexual union?

              And - was it so "from the beginning?
              Last edited by tabibito; 08-13-2021, 02:03 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #67
                And yet some people still claim there are no gray areas in Scripture.
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Federalist.

                Nationalist Christian.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                  And yet some people still claim there are no gray areas in Scripture.
                  Originally posted by https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
                  When did religion become involved? As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God's grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.
                  Originally posted by Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. XX, No. s, October ig6g
                  Marriage in the New Testament and in
                  the Early Church1
                  by WILLY RORDORF[/quote
                  It is only from the fourth century onwards that
                  we begin to see the clergy participating in marriage festivities. The first
                  text which indicates this, to my knowledge, is a canon of the Council of
                  Neocaesarea, which forbids priests from participating in the celebration of
                  second marriages.5 As we find in Augustine, the priest was invited to the
                  wedding as a witness, but no more.6 John Chrysostom7 and the Ambrosiaster8
                  speak of a benediction given by the priest to the new couple. In
                  the West he has, in addition, the responsibility of veiling the couple—a
                  tradition which we find mentioned by Ambrose9 and the Leonine and
                  Gelasian Sacramentaries.10 In the Orient, according to the information
                  given us by John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus, a clergyman aids
                  in crowning the couple and in joining their right hands.11 This always remains,
                  however, a private affair within the framework of the family and
                  home. It is only from the beginning of the sixth century that we have a
                  public religious ceremony and then it is to be found in the framework of
                  the mass.12 In the Orient it does not occur until the reign of the Byzantine
                  emperor Basil I, at the end of the ninth century.13
                  As in the time of Christ, scripture is reasonably plain - until some of the clergy decide that it is not good enough.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    Mark 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
                    5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
                    Matthew 19:8 “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.




                    Was permission to divorce the only concession made in the law?

                    If marriage-by-ceremony was the only acceptable basis for a union, it seems kind of strange that a not-quite marriage should have been lawful; but then, Judges 20:4 refers to a concubine's partner as her husband.

                    Given the fact of legitimate concubinage in the OT, does OT law show that marriage-by-ceremony is the only legitimate basis for a sexual union?

                    And - was it so "from the beginning?
                    I don't doubt there are other concessions made in the law. I suspect capital punishment for sexual offenses was one of these (though part of the reason I think this is because I suspect the Pericope Adulterae recounts an actual historical event).

                    Judges 20:4 is interesting; it seems there is a bit of conflation of terminology. It may well be that they did not think of partnerships in as clearly defined terms as we culturally would here. It seems likely that other OT authors did not seem to think

                    I wouldn't argue that marriage by ceremony is the only thing that creates a wedding. I recognize the reality of common law marriages in some circumstances, and a couple who legally applies for a marriage license minus a ceremony still indicate a clear intent to enter into a union. The real question at hand is whether sexual intercourse also fulfills this function, whether intentionally or not. Obviously, it would be trivially easy to demonstrate that sexual union would not be the only thing to create a marriage, as Matthew 1:24-25 indicates that Joseph and Mary were married prior to the consummation of their marriage (which as a Protestant, I am assuming actually happened).

                    The way I would cut through the knot here is to argue that it is culturally dependent. If one lives in a culture that accepts that sex equals marriage, then for them, it is so. This was likely the case in at least some of biblical times. That wouldn't be the case for any of our cultures.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                      I don't doubt there are other concessions made in the law. I suspect capital punishment for sexual offenses was one of these (though part of the reason I think this is because I suspect the Pericope Adulterae recounts an actual historical event).

                      Judges 20:4 is interesting; it seems there is a bit of conflation of terminology. It may well be that they did not think of partnerships in as clearly defined terms as we culturally would here. It seems likely that other OT authors did not seem to think

                      I wouldn't argue that marriage by ceremony is the only thing that creates a wedding. I recognize the reality of common law marriages in some circumstances, and a couple who legally applies for a marriage license minus a ceremony still indicate a clear intent to enter into a union. The real question at hand is whether sexual intercourse also fulfills this function, whether intentionally or not. Obviously,it would be trivially easy to demonstrate that sexual union would not be the only thing to create a marriage, as Matthew 1:24-25 indicates that Joseph and Mary were married prior to the consummation of their marriage (which as a Protestant, I am assuming actually happened).

                      The way I would cut through the knot here is to argue that it is culturally dependent. If one lives in a culture that accepts that sex equals marriage, then for them, it is so. This was likely the case in at least some of biblical times. That wouldn't be the case for any of our cultures.
                      The argument that I propose is simple. God hates divorce.

                      Paul's claim that where there has been a sexual union, even when that union is formed through prostitution, the two have become one flesh. Jesus said when the two are one flesh, no-one should put them asunder. Historically, even the Church acknowledged that a marriage was not formed prior to its consummation.

                      Consider the term, "attempted marriage," that was common enough in some denominations even during my own lifetime. The concept that an "attempted marriage" - a marriage formed without officiation under the church's authority - is illegitimate and any children born to the couple equally illegitimate - was an affront. Recognition of a marriage, regardless of the means of its formation is not optional, nor do humans get to decide whether a union is legitimate.

                      After that - matters do indeed become muddy - or maybe not: what about a person who comes to Christ having had a casual sexual relationship (one or many is irrelevant)? It can be answered with "if the unbelieving partner does not consent to stay (the very basis of a casual sexual relationship) the believer is not bound."
                      Last edited by tabibito; 08-18-2021, 01:29 PM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                        Historically, even the Church acknowledged that a marriage was not formed prior to its consummation.[/COLOR][/B]
                        "
                        If this is the case, then church tradition is simply wrong in light of the aforementioned mention in Matthew of Mary and Joseph having been married during her pregnancy.

                        I'd agree that God's hatred for divorce, and broken relationships/ties in general, is certainly a relevant principle. It's been a few years since I've actually studied the divorce and remarriage issue (though Keener's And Marries Another sits right in front of me on the shelf) Paul's statement of "not being bound" seems a little too convenient of an offramp in light of Jesus's other teachings about divorce, which seem to order permanent ineligibility to marry in at least some circumstances. I am convinced that it does, in fact, refer to divorce in context, but 1 Cor 7:39 seems situationally dependent and not necessarily applicable to anybody who has ever had a partner at any point in their life.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                          If this is the case, then church tradition is simply wrong in light of the aforementioned mention in Matthew of Mary and Joseph having been married during her pregnancy.
                          It demonstrates that a marriage can be recognised without a sexual union well enough. Note that even breaking off a betrothal constituted a divorce, as demonstrated by Joseph's contemplation of divorcing Mary quietly when he first learnt that she was pregnant.

                          I'd agree that God's hatred for divorce, and broken relationships/ties in general, is certainly a relevant principle. It's been a few years since I've actually studied the divorce and remarriage issue (though Keener's And Marries Another sits right in front of me on the shelf) Paul's statement of "not being bound" seems a little too convenient of an offramp in light of Jesus's other teachings about divorce, which seem to order permanent ineligibility to marry in at least some circumstances. I am convinced that it does, in fact, refer to divorce in context, but 1 Cor 7:39 seems situationally dependent and not necessarily applicable to anybody who has ever had a partner at any point in their life.
                          1 Cor 7:39 is not the verse under consideration: 1 Cor 7:15 is the relevant verse. The off-ramp is provided.

                          Jesus acknowledged the reality of marriage being a life-long commitment (for want of a better word), but he did stop just a hair's-breadth short of actually banning divorce - which is just enough to prevent 1 Cor 7:15 being in contradiction of Jesus' teaching. Then there is his encounter with "the woman at the well" in Samaria. Tantamount to being an argument from silence, the man that she then had was not her husband, which Jesus did not speak against. That would indeed be an argument from silence but for the aforementioned considerations.

                          ETA: The word for divorce is usually the same as the word for "putting off" sins.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                            If this is the case, then church tradition is simply wrong in light of the aforementioned mention in Matthew of Mary and Joseph having been married during her pregnancy.

                            I'd agree that God's hatred for divorce, and broken relationships/ties in general, is certainly a relevant principle. It's been a few years since I've actually studied the divorce and remarriage issue (though Keener's And Marries Another sits right in front of me on the shelf) Paul's statement of "not being bound" seems a little too convenient of an offramp in light of Jesus's other teachings about divorce, which seem to order permanent ineligibility to marry in at least some circumstances. I am convinced that it does, in fact, refer to divorce in context, but 1 Cor 7:39 seems situationally dependent and not necessarily applicable to anybody who has ever had a partner at any point in their life.
                            FWIW, David Instone-Brewer's views on divorce can be digestibly accessed here.

                            More academically rigorous presentations of the topic, and many other resources, available through his primary Web site.
                            Last edited by NorrinRadd; 08-28-2021, 02:41 AM.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                              More academically rigorous presentations of the topic, and many other resources, available through his primary Web site
                              It is a palatable presentation.



                              The exegesis is also highly questionable. If exegesis is the right word for it.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                It is a palatable presentation.



                                The exegesis is also highly questionable. If exegesis is the right word for it.
                                I haven't gone through it recently. Based on my recollection, it is not the impression one would get from the (modern English) text itself. It's his view of how the original hearers and readers would have understood the instructions, based on his understanding of the language and culture of the time. I believe he's somewhat of a specialist in rabbinical materials and Second Temple Judaism.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X