# Question. Are Prenuptial agreements Biblical?



## Anton Bruckner

Let's say you are a wealthy Christian man or woman, and you meet your "soul mate", but you are in a culture where divorce is rampant i.e a culture not conduscive to marriage, would it be Biblical of you to have a prenuptial agreement?


----------



## LadyFlynt

If there is ANY concern, then you shouldn't be getting married.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Consider the following.

1.The divorce rate amongst Christians is just as high as unbelievers.

2. Our society permits no fault divorce. (meaning, if you are not feeling the person, and if the person a Christian apostasize, they can easily leave the marriage).

3. There are financial repurcussions in divorce that can put a man or woman in perpetual poverty i.e alimony, child support (depending on how much children one has), and mortgages and car payments on assets one no longer uses.


With the above as the reality, is it unwise for a Christian to protect themselves in case something goes wrong? I mean we all have insurance for our houses, cars and lives, why not marriages?

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Slippery]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Protect yourself from someone you entering a covenant with? Again, as Joshua stated, you're assuming failure from the start...it's like keeping one foot out the door (or outside of the covenant) at all times. Nope, you marry, you covenant, you are responsible regardless of the costs. You're not covenanting "IF" or "as long as". Nope. If anything, I wouldn't trust the person asking for the prenuptial. Far as I know, you could marry, then leave, and leave the other party with zilch, KWIM?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

In everything give thanks.

I agree with what has been said and will add that even in such a tragic event, we are still commanded to trust in God´s glorious providence. Say extortion happens because of the divorce, do what is fair and honest and let what happened happen. It will be good for you and you can rightfully thank God.

We take comfort in God´s sovereignty.


----------



## VictorBravo

I think we need to redefine prenup agreement so that it in fact is a covenant. 

And one could add the provision that my wife reminds me of from time to time: "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine." :bigsmile: 

It's fine with me.

Vic


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> I think we need to redefine prenup agreement so that it in fact is a covenant.
> 
> And one could add the provision that my wife reminds me of from time to time: "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine." :bigsmile:
> 
> It's fine with me.
> 
> Vic



That won't work in Wisconsin, a community property state, but I get your drift. A co-worker (rather miserly and a non-Christian) shortly after his marriage caught his wife spending money from (gasp!) his account and immediately set up a bank account for her and made her get a job. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours". Nope. If they divorce she will get half of the whole shebang, 7 figure 401K and all. 

And, in answer to the original question, the only pre-nuptial agreement allowable is the vows made at the marriage ceremony.


----------



## CalsFarmer

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> I think we need to redefine prenup agreement so that it in fact is a covenant.
> 
> And one could add the provision that my wife reminds me of from time to time: "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine." :bigsmile:
> 
> It's fine with me.
> 
> Vic



How cute...my husband says the same thing. Actually since I owned a very successful consulting business prior to our meeting and subsequent marriage I did politely inform that: Love is love and MY BUSINESS is MY BUSINESS. He agreed. I do however consider him when asked to take jobs that could put me in hot spots or cause me to be gone for a long time.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> 
> How cute...my husband says the same thing. Actually since I owned a very successful consulting business prior to our meeting and subsequent marriage I did politely inform that: Love is love and MY BUSINESS is MY BUSINESS. He agreed. I do however consider him when asked to take jobs that could put me in hot spots or cause me to be gone for a long time.



I should have added that my wife had a lot more than I did when we got married, so it is fair. My possessions were essentially a pickup truck and a dog. The truck is gone, sadly the dog has since died. My worldly goods have always been a bit ephemeral. 

Vic


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> With the above as the reality, is it unwise for a Christian to protect themselves in case something goes wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be ungodly, therefore unwise.
Click to expand...


Would it be OK to get fire insurance on the church building?

There is already an implied pre-nup in civil law. There are in place guidelines for splitting up the stuff. Entering into marriage means you will do the process if the covenant is broken. 
You already have a pre-nup NOW. 

Usually she gets the mine, he gets the.........


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> If there is ANY concern, then you shouldn't be getting married.



 

Pre-nups are for people who don't want convental marriage.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> With the above as the reality, is it unwise for a Christian to protect themselves in case something goes wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be ungodly, therefore unwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be OK to get fire insurance on the church building?
> 
> There is already an implied pre-nup in civil law. There are in place guidelines for splitting up the stuff. Entering into marriage means you will do the process if the covenant is broken.
> You already have a pre-nup NOW.
> 
> Usually she gets the mine, he gets the.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a fire a voluntary happening to a church? Pre-nups, as defined by our age, assume failure of the marriage. Such a thing, I would think, by believers are ungodly.
Click to expand...


Nobody wants to burn a church. But nobody wants to split up. Sometimes we are compelled to seek separation through no fault of our own. 

And yes, godly love "hopes all things." 
However, NOT having a pre-nup IS a pre-nup. That is, both parties agree to let the lawyers take the lion's share of property if they part ways. Is that good stewardship? 

Also, I think a pure motive arises in trying to keep intact valuable family heirlooms that have little value outside the family name.
(We did not make a pre-nup; it seemed contrary to our relationship.)


----------



## non dignus

> I think such thinking is backwards...when you intend to marry, it should be for life. A pre-nup, as defined by our godless culture, is of no biblical value.



We are of like mind on this. And we need to be wise as serpents, so I won't completely rule it out at all times.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Wise as serpents against the one you are marrying...


I advise any girl or guy that gets presented with a pre-nup to run...quick!


----------



## Me Died Blue

Without intending offense, to be completely and openly honest I'm actually surprised this much discussion has even gone on regarding the validity of practicing them - _especially_ in our culture. Either way you slice its various parts or implications, what it comes down to in the end is essentially, "I truly love and trust you enough to enter this covenant with you to serve you forever, but we had better do it like this regardless...you know, just in case you turn out to be unfaithful and either leave me or force me to leave you."

*We have car, house and life insurance because ultimately we cannot trust our cars, houses and bodies to remain faithful to their purpose and design. But if we are entering into the marriage covenant placing anything less than full trust in our spouses, we should not be entering it.* A Person entering the husband-wife covenant with anything less than full trust and confidence in the other person's faithfulness and perseverance, as well as their own willingness for the same, is akin to a person entering the biblically parallel God-believer covenant at salvation with the Roman Catholic or Amish doctrine of assurance, or the Arminian doctrine of conditional security. And even though covenants of the former type do indeed fail at times, while the latter does not, to _treat_ the former when entering it as any less certain than the latter is to distort the Scriptural parallel the two should have, and the biblical mindset accompanying them.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Without intending offense, to be completely and openly honest I'm actually surprised this much discussion has even gone on regarding the validity of practicing them - _especially_ in our culture. Either way you slice its various parts or implications, what it comes down to in the end is essentially, "I truly love and trust you enough to enter this covenant with you to serve you forever, but we had better do it like this regardless...you know, just in case you turn out to be unfaithful and either leave me or force me to leave you."
> 
> *We have car, house and life insurance because ultimately we cannot trust our cars, houses and bodies to remain faithful to their purpose and design. But if we are entering into the marriage covenant placing anything less than full trust in our spouses, we should not be entering it.* A Person entering the husband-wife covenant with anything less than full trust and confidence in the other person's faithfulness and perseverance, as well as their own willingness for the same, is akin to a person entering the biblically parallel God-believer covenant at salvation with the Roman Catholic or Amish doctrine of assurance, or the Arminian doctrine of conditional security. And even though covenants of the former type do indeed fail at times, while the latter does not, to _treat_ the former when entering it as any less certain than the latter is to distort the Scriptural parallel the two should have, and the biblical mindset accompanying them.



Chris,
I agree, that is the ideal. (Indeed, if we pursued the ideal fully we would never marry.) But we also know we are sinners. If we fail in the 'law' of marriage there is often little 'gospel' to rectify the failure. Add this to the fact that we only half know the person we are marrying because, being sinners, we are not totally honest with the other person. In other words the process is flawed to begin with.

I don't think that having a pre-nup is an especially good idea. But there are marriages (not all marriages have the same characteristics) where it would be a device for less uncertainty and could possibly mitigate the trauma of separation. 

BTW Is any sort of autonomy destructive to marriage? Your argument might buttress the idea that women should not earn money in the marriage thereby giving them independance and an easy way out.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Without intending offense, to be completely and openly honest I'm actually surprised this much discussion has even gone on regarding the validity of practicing them - _especially_ in our culture. Either way you slice its various parts or implications, what it comes down to in the end is essentially, "I truly love and trust you enough to enter this covenant with you to serve you forever, but we had better do it like this regardless...you know, just in case you turn out to be unfaithful and either leave me or force me to leave you."
> 
> *We have car, house and life insurance because ultimately we cannot trust our cars, houses and bodies to remain faithful to their purpose and design. But if we are entering into the marriage covenant placing anything less than full trust in our spouses, we should not be entering it.* A Person entering the husband-wife covenant with anything less than full trust and confidence in the other person's faithfulness and perseverance, as well as their own willingness for the same, is akin to a person entering the biblically parallel God-believer covenant at salvation with the Roman Catholic or Amish doctrine of assurance, or the Arminian doctrine of conditional security. And even though covenants of the former type do indeed fail at times, while the latter does not, to _treat_ the former when entering it as any less certain than the latter is to distort the Scriptural parallel the two should have, and the biblical mindset accompanying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> I agree, that is the ideal. (Indeed, if we pursued the ideal fully we would never marry.) But we also know we are sinners. If we fail in the 'law' of marriage there is often little 'gospel' to rectify the failure. Add this to the fact that we only half know the person we are marrying because, being sinners, we are not totally honest with the other person. In other words the process is flawed to begin with.
Click to expand...


I think your second sentence here may possibly be evidence of the problem I see in how you're approaching this; it is completely foreign, and indeed absolutely contrary, to Scripture to say that never marrying would be the "ideal taken to its fullest extent." Proverbs 18:22 states, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord." As the Westminster Larger Catechism points out in questions 138-139, celibacy is intended for some, and marriage for some, and neither is more "ideal" than another for all believers, even in a hypothetical sense. For if that was true in any way, it would ultimately be "ideal" for the human race to produce no more children, as to do so outside of marriage is a sin. Furthermore, the very picture Scripture uses to describe the maximally-ideal, perfect relationship between Christ and the Church is none other than the symbolism of a groom and bride. Thus, to speak of singleness in any sense as being "ideal" for believers in this life is a subjective judgment unfounded in Scripture, and making such claims on the topic open the door for blurring the lines in other aspects of that topics as well, such as the relationship of trust to the marriage covenant and the implications of that relationship for the notion of "back-up" plans.

Also, you said that "we only half know the person we are marrying because, being sinners, we are not totally honest with the other person. In other words the process is flawed to begin with." Your second sentence here interprets your first. That is, if either person in a courtship (or whatever you want to call it) is not trying to be _fully_ honest with the other person and wanting that person to do the same - so as to make a wise and informed decision about marriage - then indeed, the process of their consideration and pursuit of marriage is _incredibly_ flawed to begin with. But that is not how it should be pursued. That lack of honesty ultimately has the motive of comfortableness and a desire to "impress" the other person, and if those things ever come at the expense of honesty - the purpose of the latter being to make a truly wise decision on marriage - then they are of the flesh in that case. Again, as with the "ideal" singleness issue, I think this view of half-honesty being the norm before marriage represents a fundamentally flawed view of the pre-marriage state and its purpose, and thus also should cause you to rethink what you have said on trust before marriage as it relates to prenuptial agreements as well.



> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> I don't think that having a pre-nup is an especially good idea. But there are marriages (not all marriages have the same characteristics) where it would be a device for less uncertainty and could possibly mitigate the trauma of separation.



Take this principle to its logical extent, applied to other areas as well. We all know from experience that the visible Church and its particular denominations and congregations are fallible, and in many potential ways as well. Thus, should a committed believer perpetually continue as a mere attender of his congregation without ever becoming a member his whole life, since he realizes the elders of that congregation could fall into deception and could then abuse their authority over him as a member to discipline him unjustly? By the very logic you are using with prenuptial agreements between a man and a woman, a person could serve, learn and fellowship well at a church his whole life without ever becoming a member, and after all, refraining from membership would keep the elders from abusing their power to unjustly discipline him should they ever fall into deception or unfaithfulness.



> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> BTW Is any sort of autonomy destructive to marriage? Your argument might buttress the idea that women should not earn money in the marriage thereby giving them independance and an easy way out.



I basically see this as a straw-man of what I am (and other are) saying about marriage and the role trust biblically plays in relation to it. Should a woman earn money in the marriage from the beginning with _any_ of the motive or reason for doing so being back-up for her in case her husband might possibly become unfaithful someday? Absolutely not. But women can biblically earn money in a marriage without that motive or even consideration being anywhere on the radar screen whatsoever.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Wise as serpents against the one you are marrying...


It doesn't have to be _against_ him or her. It is defensive should the other party offend. It is boundaries in writing.


> I advise any girl or guy that gets presented with a pre-nup to run...quick!


I advise you not to run but seek why they feel the need for it and see if it can be hurdled.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Sorry, I believe wholeheartedly that you seek to know the person well enough before marriage (takes time) that one does not need to be defensive and that neither party would feel the need for a pre-nup...thus the situation of being presented with one should never occur.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Sorry, I believe wholeheartedly that you seek to know the person well enough before marriage (takes time) that one does not need to be defensive and that neither party would feel the need for a pre-nup...thus the situation of being presented with one should never occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, even if you didn't know the person "well enough", you _still_ maried them. The husband should love the wife as Christ loved the Church, which means without reciprocation, without condition, without exception (although there are biblical exceptions, that's another thread). Now, speaking to biblical exceptions, you never _plan_ such things obviously. So, that being said, a pre-nup is, in a sense, _planning_ for a divorce.
Click to expand...


Agreed! I was just stating that there could be warning signs in advance that marriage is not quite on the horizon...and agreed, you marry, learn to deal.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Never took you as conflicting...I think we were coming from two sides of the issue...pre-marital and marital.


----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## LadyFlynt

The woman now scurries to her proper place....in the tea parlor....


----------



## CalsFarmer

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> 
> How cute...my husband says the same thing. Actually since I owned a very successful consulting business prior to our meeting and subsequent marriage I did politely inform that: Love is love and MY BUSINESS is MY BUSINESS. He agreed. I do however consider him when asked to take jobs that could put me in hot spots or cause me to be gone for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have added that my wife had a lot more than I did when we got married, so it is fair. My possessions were essentially a pickup truck and a dog. The truck is gone, sadly the dog has since died. My worldly goods have always been a bit ephemeral.
> 
> Vic
Click to expand...


He had the antiques...I had the business we think it was a great match!!!! Some people do look at us strangely though since he stays at home and trades securities. Hes working on our retirement funds and I handle the day to day in the here and now.....

Is it not amazing what can be accomplished when two people agree??


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Without intending offense, to be completely and openly honest I'm actually surprised this much discussion has even gone on regarding the validity of practicing them - _especially_ in our culture. Either way you slice its various parts or implications, what it comes down to in the end is essentially, "I truly love and trust you enough to enter this covenant with you to serve you forever, but we had better do it like this regardless...you know, just in case you turn out to be unfaithful and either leave me or force me to leave you."
> 
> *We have car, house and life insurance because ultimately we cannot trust our cars, houses and bodies to remain faithful to their purpose and design. But if we are entering into the marriage covenant placing anything less than full trust in our spouses, we should not be entering it.* A Person entering the husband-wife covenant with anything less than full trust and confidence in the other person's faithfulness and perseverance, as well as their own willingness for the same, is akin to a person entering the biblically parallel God-believer covenant at salvation with the Roman Catholic or Amish doctrine of assurance, or the Arminian doctrine of conditional security. And even though covenants of the former type do indeed fail at times, while the latter does not, to _treat_ the former when entering it as any less certain than the latter is to distort the Scriptural parallel the two should have, and the biblical mindset accompanying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> I agree, that is the ideal. (Indeed, if we pursued the ideal fully we would never marry.) But we also know we are sinners. If we fail in the 'law' of marriage there is often little 'gospel' to rectify the failure. Add this to the fact that we only half know the person we are marrying because, being sinners, we are not totally honest with the other person. In other words the process is flawed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your second sentence here may possibly be evidence of the problem I see in how you're approaching this; it is completely foreign, and indeed absolutely contrary, to Scripture to say that never marrying would be the "ideal taken to its fullest extent." Proverbs 18:22 states, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord." As the Westminster Larger Catechism points out in questions 138-139, celibacy is intended for some, and marriage for some, and neither is more "ideal" than another for all believers, even in a hypothetical sense. For if that was true in any way, it would ultimately be "ideal" for the human race to produce no more children, as to do so outside of marriage is a sin. Furthermore, the very picture Scripture uses to describe the maximally-ideal, perfect relationship between Christ and the Church is none other than the symbolism of a groom and bride. Thus, to speak of singleness in any sense as being "ideal" for believers in this life is a subjective judgment unfounded in Scripture, and making such claims on the topic open the door for blurring the lines in other aspects of that topics as well, such as the relationship of trust to the marriage covenant and the implications of that relationship for the notion of "back-up" plans.
> 
> Also, you said that "we only half know the person we are marrying because, being sinners, we are not totally honest with the other person. In other words the process is flawed to begin with." Your second sentence here interprets your first. That is, if either person in a courtship (or whatever you want to call it) is not trying to be _fully_ honest with the other person and wanting that person to do the same - so as to make a wise and informed decision about marriage - then indeed, the process of their consideration and pursuit of marriage is _incredibly_ flawed to begin with. But that is not how it should be pursued. That lack of honesty ultimately has the motive of comfortableness and a desire to "impress" the other person, and if those things ever come at the expense of honesty - the purpose of the latter being to make a truly wise decision on marriage - then they are of the flesh in that case. Again, as with the "ideal" singleness issue, I think this view of half-honesty being the norm before marriage represents a fundamentally flawed view of the pre-marriage state and its purpose, and thus also should cause you to rethink what you have said on trust before marriage as it relates to prenuptial agreements as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> I don't think that having a pre-nup is an especially good idea. But there are marriages (not all marriages have the same characteristics) where it would be a device for less uncertainty and could possibly mitigate the trauma of separation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take this principle to its logical extent, applied to other areas as well. We all know from experience that the visible Church and its particular denominations and congregations are fallible, and in many potential ways as well. Thus, should a committed believer perpetually continue as a mere attender of his congregation without ever becoming a member his whole life, since he realizes the elders of that congregation could fall into deception and could then abuse their authority over him as a member to discipline him unjustly? By the very logic you are using with prenuptial agreements between a man and a woman, a person could serve, learn and fellowship well at a church his whole life without ever becoming a member, and after all, refraining from membership would keep the elders from abusing their power to unjustly discipline him should they ever fall into deception or unfaithfulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> BTW Is any sort of autonomy destructive to marriage? Your argument might buttress the idea that women should not earn money in the marriage thereby giving them independance and an easy way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I basically see this as a straw-man of what I am (and other are) saying about marriage and the role trust biblically plays in relation to it. Should a woman earn money in the marriage from the beginning with _any_ of the motive or reason for doing so being back-up for her in case her husband might possibly become unfaithful someday? Absolutely not. But women can biblically earn money in a marriage without that motive or even consideration being anywhere on the radar screen whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Chris,
Thank you for engaging me. I did not mean that singleness is the ideal. I meant that if we pursued the ideal fully in order to get married we would perhaps never marry because the standard would be too high. I'm sorry I was unclear on that.

Regarding truthfulness in courtship: I'm not talking about outright fraud. I'm talking about the normal way we conduct ourselves in pursuing a spouse. We put our best foot forward. We don't emphasize our shortcomings and divulge all our sins. Perhaps I was using hyperbole when I said we only HALF-know them. The reality is when we say 'I do' we don't know that person 100%. And that is what makes marriage fun.

But within every marriage there are different degrees of autonomy. The less autonomy there is, the more fulfilling the relationship. We retain a certain autonomy when we join a church. However, we have boundaries that the elders may not cross. The cults would be an example of a social construct with improper boundaries. Your analogy equates the pre-nup with refraining from joining the church. Perhaps it's like a written agreement whereby if one is excommunicated one is quaranteed some former condition pre-dating membership. Of course that deal would be off. 

But marriage, while sacred, is also in the civil category. The political element is real and all realities should be addressed. (I'm not arguing that a pre-nup is essential, but only an option) If one or both cannot marry without some quarantee, wouldn't it be better to marry rather than stay single? I'm thinking of older people. 

Did I raise a strawman proper? Or was I making a useful comparison to see differences and similarities. The woman's motive for making the money is irrelevant. The end result of a separate account makes a condition where leaving would be easier. The pre-nup also would make leaving easier. But neither one should be construed as planning a divorce. They both make good financial sense in moderation motivated by love.

That sounds contradictory, however the motive for a pre-nup could be one of selfless pragmatism since we are living in a fallen world, making covenants with fallen people. The focus of the agreement may be for the welfare of children and not even address the the rights of the couple. Conceivably they could agree that if the marriage dissolves, all assets would proceed to charity as an incentive to stay together.

I stand by my assertion that not having a pre-nup IS a pre-nup. "Our pre-nup is that we are at the mercy of God should we fail." Then if there IS a _de facto_ pre-nup what's wrong with ammendments?

Insurance gives security against things that are beyond our control and things that are against our sincerest desires.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Does Christ have a pre-nup with His bride the Church? 

We call that Arminianism, or Pelagianism.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Does Christ have a pre-nup with His bride the Church?
> 
> We call that Arminianism, or Pelagianism.


  Why should He? He sanctifies and regenerates them.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Does Christ have a pre-nup with His bride the Church?
> 
> We call that Arminianism, or Pelagianism.



Agreed. That would be unthinkable. 

The kingdom is _already_ and _not yet_. I am working from the _not yet_ side.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> The husband should love the wife as Christ loved the Church, which means without reciprocation, without condition, without exception.



What if the wife wants a pre-nup?


----------



## non dignus

> A man shouldn't marry a woman who sees a "possibility" of marriage.



That is good advice.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

So the 50% of Christian marriages that ended up in divorce, due to one party not wanting to stay put. Wouldn't it have been better if the innocent party had a prenup agreement in place before?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Ok Josh, your point brings me to the next question. How do we know that we are marrying a possessing Christian and not a professing Christian? All we can judge are the externals. So wouldn't it be wise for persons to protect themselves in the event of a professing Christian apostisizing of which they didn't know that this professing Christian was such?


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Let's say you are a wealthy Christian man or woman, and you meet your "soul mate", but you are in a culture where divorce is rampant i.e a culture not conduscive to marriage, would it be Biblical of you to have a prenuptial agreement?



Personally, I don't think prenuptials make a whole heck of a lot of difference anyway as most states are community property states. All prenups can do is prevent the spouse from laying claim to pre-marriage assets. With most twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings starting in the race of life... such assets are pretty neglible. 

With regards to divorced people getting remarried... your laying claim to a covenant marriage has already been smashed on the rocks, so it is absolutely pointless to worry about it. Get a prenuptial! I'll draft it for you! Law school dropouts don't charge anything.


I once saw a boat named _Prenuptial Agreement_ in North Carolina... pretty funny...
:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Once again, need I epmhasize the fact that the "Christians" in these "Christian marriages" are _professing_ Christians, not necessarily _possessing_ Christians? Furthermore, if it was a Christian divorce, everything should be handled by the Church. The fact that a professing Christian would take an unbiblical divorce to the state is further indication that they are not true believers.



Most _all_ Americans are nominal _Christians_ at wedding and funerals, because they need a preacher... and they need some pretense of piety and solemnity on such occasions...

Good observation Josh.


----------



## Pilgrim

I agree that we may not know, and I know of some Christians who have been burned by marrying people who turned out not to be true Christians. But I also agree that we should not plan for failure.


----------



## Henry from Canada

I have a stupid and somewhat irreverent question.

Has anyone ever done a study to determine the divorce rate amongst couples that signed a pre-nup?

In other words, what percent of couples with pre-nups are divorced within 10 years?

I would suspect that the percentage is high, but then again, I have been wrong before.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

man, you guys are pretty straight foward.


----------



## Henry from Canada

I'm not totally sure about this question.

What if one of the spouses has a share in a family business?

Is it reasonable for the family to insist on a pre-nup, so that in event of divorce or death the family business is not broken up?

Pre-nups do not just protect against divorce, they also can be used to protect family businesses in event of death.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Nope...still no go. The family needs to realize that this marriage is bringing another person INTO the family. In the case of a divorce...well, that's just one of the liabilities and, again, it is presuming failure from the starting gate. In the case of death, why shouldn't the spouse (and generally children) continue to receive a portion of support (since that was part of the support while the other spouse was living) from the family business? The family is suppose to take care of eachother...this includes in-laws. My mil considers me a daughter, not just a daughter in law.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

colleen and joshua are too righteous. its a good thing they are not lawyers or judges. : :


----------



## Puritanhead

Not to toss a monkeywrench in this discussion... everyone says prenups are wrong... I disagree. BTW I was being tongue-in-cheek beforehand.

Prenuptials are not _evil_ and _off-limits_ _per se_-- quite the contrary. They do not have to say in so many words: "hey, if we get divorced, I keep this money." *A couple can make a covenantal prenuptial that affirms rigorous Scriptural standards of marriage simply by enunciating Scripture, and the two spouses commitment to those standards, as well as love and mutual fealty. They can get a pastor and/or parents to observe, and perhaps help shape the covenant. This could be a broader proclamation concomitant to taking wedding vows.* Some Christians get some very well-articulated _prenuptials_ or covenant vows.... it can be great to focus on, in formative years of marriage. What do young Christian couples often focus on in their first years? The Christian ideal of marriage, and mutual fealty towards one another. Covenant vows can be a recurring frame of reference... and it is not legalism, but rather would make one focus on what the Bible says about marriage.

Now, of course, what do I know? I'm not married!
:bigsmile:


----------



## cultureshock

I find this to be an interesting topic. Is a prenuptial agreement inherently and necessarily in conflict with a biblical view of marriage?

Someone said that prenuptial agreements are indicative of a low view of marriage. I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially since the Pentateuch contains some prenuptial-type agreements, like that a man would have to pay back the father of his ex-wife if he divorced her. I can't remember the exact references, but if my memory serves me correctly here, then this is a case where a prenuptial agreement is commanded by God, and it does not necessitate a low view of marriage. In these cases, the prenuptial agreement serves as a an added protection not to enter into marriage lightly, and once you have married, not to divorce quickly.

Prenuptial agreements do not assume that marriage will fail, as if it is certain to happen, but the terms and conditions of the agreement only kick in and govern in case the marriage does dissolve. It's like this: Just because I have a fire extinguisher with the words "In Case of Emergency" does not assume that there will be a fire. It is there _in case_ a fire happens. Just because the author of Hebrews gives a warning to the elect not to depart from the living God, and threatens consequences if they do, does not mean that they will, or even that they can (Heb. 6:4-20)--and this is not Arminianism.

Couldn't it be wise to use a prenuptial agreement as an added boundary to reinforce the seriousness of the marriage covenant? That is, perhaps because two Christians see marriage as sacred, they want to make it extra difficult for either partner to make a clean break with all the money. That way, when he is tempted to leave the marriage (yes, even _true_ Christians are tempted to leave their marriages), he does not feel the added temptation, due to greed, to divorce. As it is, our hearts are dark enough that we sometimes seriously consider falling to just one temptation, let alone many. Maybe in some cases, if we can minimize temptation to divorce through the help of the civil magistrate, it would be wise to cast ourselves on that God-ordained means of help.

True story: When I was young, I attended a Wesleyan church. After church one Sunday night, the pastor split with another woman he'd been committing adultery with, cleaning out the bank account he shared with his wife. As David with Bathsheba, one sin leads to another. Sometimes external compulsion is valuable, even for Christians.

What do you all think?

Brian


----------



## satz

Brian, 

that's a very interesting way of looking at the topic and on first glance i think i can see some merits to your view.



> Maybe in some cases, if we can minimize temptation to divorce through the help of the civil magistrate, it would be wise to cast ourselves on that God-ordained means of help.



Without having done much deep thought on the subject, i think you raise a good point. Lofty ideals of hating sin and loving righteousness are certainly good, but i think there is wisdom in setting up barriers that will make the actual commission of sin difficult... at the very least it will give your conscience some extra time to kick in...

Adultery is a horrible sin and the offense it causes against God and ones spouse should be more than enough to convince any right thinking christian person to stay well away. But Solomon didn't think that was enough. In warning against adultery in Proverbs 5-7, he also told is son (?) of the fact that adultery would waste away his substance and his strenght. He warned of the disgrace and shame of discovery. He also warned against the terrible anger of a cheated husband to make sure his son had many reasons to keep away from adultery.

Jesus Christ told us to cut of your hands and eyes to avoid sin. A perfect man would need to do no such thing as his hatred from sin and love of God would be enough to keep him away from sin. Yet it seems Jesus was saying that if we find outselves weak against temptation, we should remove the ability to sin so as to safeguard ourselves.

My instinctive reaction would be that pre-nups for christians are a worldy addition we do not need. Yet i do see some wisdom i setting up additional barriers against sin, or making the commission of the sin difficult. A man or woman in an unhappy marriage may well be sorely tempted to take the easy way out and seek a divorce. Yet the prospect of financial hardships following that event might serve to restrain him or her, hopefully until the marriage can be mended by more biblical means.

Just floating some thoughts...


----------



## cultureshock

Just to clarify my position, I'm not necessarily saying that there should be prenuptial agreements in every case, or even in a lot of cases, I'm just trying to argue for some good ol' Christian liberty here.

Brian


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Brian I like your points.

Today I see many men subjected to "financial serfdom."

Here's how it goes.
1. They get married.
2. They have 2-3 children
3. They have a mortgage
4. They have car payments
5. They have student loans.

The wife decides to divorce since the marriage is, "unfulfilling", and the man is now required to pay 25-35% of his salary in child support payments in addition to paying the mortgage, car payments and student loans he has. Now after paying all of this, he now has to find a way to get shelter for himself.

No Fault divorce is too powerful a weapon that brings psychological, and financial destruction. And the man being a good father is irrevelant since 90% of the custody battles end up in the woman's favor.

I don't think with the above being the reality in America today, we can afford to have an idealistic notion of marriage.

I think a prenup can be constructed and be biblical, which states that no party shall be allowed a divorce unless there is adultery and or abandonment. But if a party insists on a divorce if no adultery and or abandonment is involved, certain penalties should be accrued to the person who wants the divorce, so as to preserve some financial health of the victimized party.


----------



## cultureshock

Keon,

What you described is just the sort of thing I'm talking about. If a Christian couple decided to do it that way before getting married, I wouldn't be able to tell them not to, at least not on biblical grounds (because of my arguments above). Therefore, I think it is an infringement on Christian liberty to try to enforce this issue.

Brian

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by cultureshock]


----------

