# Is Sex Before Marriage wrong?



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

I have a friend that almost believes that sex before marriage isn't wrong if one intends to get married. He said the scriptures he found basically define sexual immorality as "get one partner and stick with them" and that it is not sexual "immorality" if one is having sex with someone they will live with forever. Maybe sex marries them to God. So he is defining sexual immorality as having multible sex partners and making it not meaningful....

I want to tell him YES IT'S WRONG! I am having trouble backing it up. I say "sexual immorality" and he says interpreting scripture by scripture "sexual immorality" is making sex meaningful.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## Augusta (Feb 17, 2005)

for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
n. 
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.


Romans 1:28-32

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 17, 2005)

What would Jesus do? 

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Augusta (Feb 17, 2005)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 17, 2005)

Sex before marriage is a terorist tactic to get rid of our freedom and liberty oops wrong thread jk lol.

why dont they just get married?? 

Why waste time on sex when you could be reading a book.

blade


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
> n.
> Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
> ...



That is the english definition from the King James translation, other translations like the New King James define that same verse with words that can contradict it by their english definition (i.e. sexual immorality). Interesting enough all the other translations don't even mention fornication or sexual immorality in this verse.


HCM -They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, disputes, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 

NASB- being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, R52

NKJ- being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, F3 wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

NIV-29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

Amplified-29Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,


Can you define fornication with scripture? What is the greek word for this term, and how is it defined?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

People believe what they want to believe about sex, regardless of the clear statements of the Bible. I once had a friend try to tell me that the Bible really didn't say much about sex. He believed adultery was all right as long as his wife agreed.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Why waste time on sex when you could be reading a book.
> 
> blade


----------



## cupotea (Feb 17, 2005)

... My signature appears to be missing... That's odd...


... And now it's not... Never mind! 

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Cottonball]


----------



## tdowns (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> ...




Surely this is a joke...I love books, but not even close to...in the confines of marriage of course.

Sex outside of marriage is one of those lies that seem so appealing, and very logical to our fallen nature. As a Christian, thinking it through, and seeing all the ramifications of sex outside of marriage, it really is the most logical, common sense practice--to have sex with someone you are committed to for life, and bound to by law and God. But to the outside world, it just seems strange to wait for marriage.

Meanwhile...

STD's
Emotional confusion
Physical problems
Children out of wedlock
loneliness
guilt
lack of maturation
etc.

All are the fruits of sex outside of marriage.

Joy,
commitment,
companionship,
sanctification,
Children,
Physical health,
and let's not forget
Fun, fun, fun,


Are the fruits of sex within the confines of marriage and marriage itself.

Marriage is a great thing, but can be a chore, work that sanctifies..., sex is a fantastic thing, one of the rewards of marriage, the sex is the appealing part, that can be a motivater to take on the challenging, but rewarding, responsibility of marriage...like Grandma used to say, why buy the cow if you get the milk for free. Every study shows, sex before marriage is not a good thing, yet what does our culture promote?

Find your girl or guy, and through council with Godly men, get married!

Girls, trust me DO NOT GIVE THE MILK FOR FREE--wait for marriage, you will be sorry if you don't, it's just a fact.

BOYS, RESPECT THOSE GIRLS!!!!!! TREASURE THEM, AND MARRY THEM!

TDREVOLVER
Going on 9 years marriage, and every day it gets better!

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by tdowns007]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> People believe what they want to believe about sex, regardless of the clear statements of the Bible. I once had a friend try to tell me that the Bible really didn't say much about sex. He believed adultery was all right as long as his wife agreed.



What is the clear statement of the Bible about this issue?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 17, 2005)

well I was and was not joking here I posed this question to my mother and grandmother when we had dinner over the weekend for V-Day. 

Imagine all the time we corporeals spend on Sex, Sexuality, and Social to Romantic relationships with the opposite sex??

If we took that time away from that granted we didnt desire corporeal reproduction as badly as we tend to do. And how much farther the gospel could be spread let alone all the achievements that could be done to benefit humanity in a Godly way(as opposed to the UN Star Trek type way) ???

We spend so much time and emotions over an issue that to its utmost extent only takes 10 minutes at the most of fruitition. 

books are much better but yet tell us one simple thing man is a created being born a sinner and no matter what the name creates problems and commits the same stupid mistakes over and over again. 

blade


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Honestly, I believe it is fairly clear on fornication, but if there weren't just enough ambiguity to allow people to presume liberties they don't have, we wouldn't have this thread. My main point with "clear statements," however, was not to imply that including fornication within the confines of "sexual immorality" is so obvious that it is not worth discussing. By "clear statements" I was referring to the _very_ clear prohibitions against adultery (which, even if one allows for polygamy, do not allow a man to have sex with whomever he pleases without marrying the women). My friend was trying to make the argument that a man may have sex with basically any woman as long as she is not married to someone else. The point I was making is that even these commands can be sugarcoated by those who would behave as they please regardless.

I do believe that, as has already been discussed, the New Testament passages that refer to sexual immorality include premarital sex. Some would say this is begging the question, however. I think some of the best support comes from 1 Corinthians 8:36, which says, "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin." What constitutes "behaving properly"? The next verse, which allows that a person may remain unmarried if he is "under no necessity but having his desire under control" gives, in my opinion, a pretty clear indication. The failure to behave properly must somehow relate to the inability to control desires. If there is such a thing as "behaving properly" toward a betrothed (or virgin, however you translate the text), there must be restrictions placed on that behavior. The assumption throughout is that everyone already knows what those restrictions are, as even many pagan societies throughout history have intuitively known: Sex is for marriage.

The Old Testament provides some additional clarification. In Exodus 22:16 (and later in Deuteronomy 23:28) a man who sleeps with an unbetrothed virgin must pay the bride price for her and then marry her if her father agrees. Now, an engaged couple might believe they are outside the restrictions that are clarified in the Old Testament, since it deals with categories of a) unengaged virgins and b) virgins engaged to another man. Where does it deal with the situation of a man sleeping with his fiancee? (Maybe it does, and I'm missing it.) For one thing, would it be assumed that a man would not violate his own fiancee? But, just as we can go to the OT where the NT is ambiguous, we can look back at Paul for clarification: There are also restrictions on what a man may do with his betrothed. In any case, the situation in Exodus 22:16 shows that the man who sleeps with the unmarried woman should marry her. It doesn't state that he should get engaged to her or promise to marry her at some time in the future. There is no idea that the couple may continue their activities just because they have promised to get married. 

Nor is there any idea that the couple is "really married" already in the eyes of God. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas advocated by those who want to argue that sex between engaged people is all right. Yes, sex does make the man and woman one flesh, which should only take place within marriage, but sex does not equal some sort of mystical marriage union. Marriage forms the basic unit of society, and marriage vows are a community concern. This is really the core issue here, since most will agree that the Bible teaches fidelity for life. Is your sexual activity your private concern or should it be within the confines of a community-sanctioned vow? The idea constantly put forward in the OT that adultery is a community concern that should be purged from the land shows that sexual activity is more than just a private action. Misuse of it affects everyone. This is why public vows are needed to make a marriage "real." A couple who have not yet made public vows within their community structure but choose to have sex anyway are not "really" married in the eyes of God, they are really fornicators.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> If we took that time away from that granted we didnt desire corporeal reproduction as badly as we tend to do. And how much farther the gospel could be spread let alone all the achievements that could be done to benefit humanity in a Godly way(as opposed to the UN Star Trek type way) ???



And if Christians didn't desire children, they'd have more time to evangelize foreign countries. But does that mean Christians shouldn't have children and should instead devote all their efforts to outreach? That wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the Bible, which teaches that children are a blessing. And of course, all we Presbyterians on the board (and probably the Baptists, too) believe that the family (frankly, originating in sexual intercourse) is the normal means of evangelism. By the grace of God, I, as a single person, don't know this from personal experience, but sex is a great thing, not something we should look down on as a distraction from God's real purposes:

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." (Hebrews 13:4)

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 17, 2005)

I didnt mean to imply that we shouldnt have children or desire to do so. My intent probably not written well was that we(society) as a whole tend to spend too much time absorbed in the issue than need be. Time which could be spent elsewhere. 

blade

p.s. Im single never dated dont really want to and at present dont really desire marriage. My overall consenses is that Im way to immature to be in a serious relationship. Let alone a Husband and Father. Frankly woman as far as related to dating who have shown interest in me scare me to death. Not that they are scary but the idea of being actively persued or looked upon in that role scares me. 

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> p.s. Im single never dated dont really want to and at present dont really desire marriage. My overall consenses is that Im way to immature to be in a serious relationship. Let alone a Husband and Father. Frankly woman as far as related to dating who have shown interest in me scare me to death. Not that they are scary but the idea of being actively persued or looked upon in that role scares me.



With good reason.  I think marriage is pretty scary when you realize the seriousness of the issue, which you obviously do.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 17, 2005)

Great thoughts Evie, I would add this. It is to easy to fall into the trap that our culture has set before us. Sex apart from marriage is unthinkable. Sex is part of the package of marriage. Sex is to marriage what fruit is to a smoothie. (That's not biblical except in a very loose paraphrase of Song of Solomon.)

My point is, our culture for many years as truncated sex so that it might appear to be an end in itself. Movies portray love as a progression that ends in sex. 

Marriage is a grand package that includes lifetime commitment, romance, anticipation, sex, seeking God's will together, pain and tribulation, respect. Sex is fully enjoyed only as part of the package. To take sex out of the package is to destroy it's context and cause it to morph into something bizarre and evil. When manna wasn't consumed properly it rotted and was infested with worms.

So when you ask, can one have sex outside of marriage, the answer is no! because sex, outside of marriage, ceases to be sex. It is a truncated and deformed malady that leads to selfish gratification, loving pleasure and using people to achieve it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Tim,
Again, where is the clear statement in the bible about the trinity? New Testament Tithing? Covenant of Redemption? There is necessary inference on the subject. You will not find the statement, "Sex before marriage is a sin". I asked you to study the subject of N.I.; have you? Hermeneutically, you are aware that it is a necessary discipline? 

God has assuredly preserved the idea that sex outside of the marriage bed is sin. History of the church has embraced the principle. Brilliant thinkers of the past have commented on the premise; clearly. Gods word has been preserved over the ages; His hand surely upon it. The church will prevail, the gates of hell will not. The HS is guide; He will guide us into all truth. There is nothing new under the sun. In the same way, this is why you have never seen anything other than that which has been presented above by your brothers and sisters in Christ. This is what God wants His church to know in regards to the subject.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

> Tim,
> Again, where is the clear statement in the bible about the trinity? New Testament Tithing? Covenant of Redemption? There is necessary inference on the subject. You will not find the statement, "Sex before marriage is a sin". I asked you to study the subject of N.I.; have you? Hermeneutically, you are aware that it is a necessary discipline?



And might I add, women taking the Lord's supper? Ok seriously.
I went to bed right before this thread was posted and it exploded. Great thoughts everybody.

Blade,


> My overall consenses is that Im way to immature to be in a serious relationship.[/quote
> 
> That realisation is a sign of maturity that could be lacking in many about to be married.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> we(society) as a whole tend to spend too much time absorbed in the issue than need be. Time which could be spent elsewhere.
> ...Im single never dated dont really want to and at present dont really desire marriage. My overall consenses is that Im way to immature to be in a serious relationship.
> [Edited on 2-17-2005 by Bladestunner316]



Hey Blade, you know what I thought of:

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." (1 Cor 7:32-34).


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> ...




I don't think he is trying to justify multiple sex partners. I think he is trying to say that sex basically makes the couple man and wife, and if they break up it is sinful as divorce. In theory it is still staying amongst two people, and anything more is adultry. Like once a couple has become one flesh they must stay that way. This seems crazy to me since I've always thought this common sense, since the word fornication was in the Bible, but then I realized it's only in the KJV version... Augustus argument was very poor in my opinion. Exegesis Fallicies make peoples thoughts untrustworthy. We must have very good hermenuics and not let culture "americanize/modernize" us but stand our ground. 

I haven't read the threads below the one I'm replying to now, because I am typing up this huge thing on Limited Atonement. I will read them prob. later tonight.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

> We must have very good hermenuics and not let culture "americanize/modernize" us but stand our ground.



Tim,
The only problem with what you are saying is that no part of Christian history agree's with you; either on this point or the one previously on "Filthy language". So, based upon that, one of a few things is occuring. Either you are presuppositionally holding to a line of thought, i.e. solo scriptura or your misunderstanding of Sola scriptura, or your hermeneutic is flawed. Which one is it?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 17, 2005)

Scott, I think your hermeneutic in reading this thread is flawed. Do you even know what Tim is trying to say?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 17, 2005)

Jacob,
I appreciate the thought I dont want to get ahead of myslef I defenitelly as evie said realize the seriousness about marriage but am still plagued with sinful flesh that goes against what I want to do and think.

Cottonball,
Good Verse  

blade


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 17, 2005)

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." I don't know Greek... but this seems to imply that the bed is defiled outside of marriage. That seems quite clear to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

Gabriel,
You tell me:

Here is what Tim stated in the first post:



> I want to tell him YES IT'S WRONG! I am having trouble backing it up. I say "sexual immorality" and he says interpreting scripture by scripture "sexual immorality" is making sex meaningful.



We are again visiting the same idea as was visited in the "Filthy Talking" thread, no? Scripture defines scripture! However, as Tim alludes, he see's nowhere in scripture to back this up. He finds no passage that says, 'Sex outside of marriage is illicit'. This is a flawed hermeneutic; history proves this. History has supported the scripturally inferred idea that sex outside of marriage is in fact sin. 

This quote validates my claim:



> This seems crazy to me since I've always thought this common sense, since the word fornication was in the Bible, but then I realized it's only in the KJV version... Augustus argument was very poor in my opinion. Exegesis Fallicies make peoples thoughts untrustworthy. We must have very good hermenuics and not let culture "americanize/modernize" us but stand our ground.



Is this clearer for you young man?





[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabriel,
> You tell me:
> 
> ...




Scott your flipping out and assuming/ putting words in my mouth like usual. You are saying I am trying to justify covenant unfaithfulness! 

I am not justifying sex out of marriage. I am only revealing another view.

Which is:

Basically marriage (or beginning a covenant) begins at becoming one flesh. I can only assert this from what I've read and heard; having sex with someone is a huge deal, it involves a huge emotional investment, and testimonies claim things as feeling as if they had been giving the partner "part of their soul,” thus there is some abstract, innate feeling to it similar to when a pagan views something as evil in it’s self. Therefore a breakup after this type of relationship is really no different than a divorce except without all the legal papers. What defines marriage: The ceremony, or the act of becoming one flesh? If becoming one flesh makes the covenant, then the only grounds of divorcing the other flesh is when the flesh presents covenant unfaithfulness or dies off. Thus when a person who has had sex while not being deemed marred by the state “break up” it is defined as divorce and covenant unfaithfulness of the flesh, in the Bible. Thus anyone who becomes one flesh and then ends the relationship ends the covenant and become a divorcee'. 

Thus sex is marriage.... 

Both ways exalt covenant faithfulness, In fact this other way is more hardcore. 

Do not think that I am representing or adhering to any covenant unfaithfulness!

Also I am not asserting anything yet. I am going to take this to the scriptures. 

Also, be honest please. When you labeled Gabe as a "young man" were you doign so in a degrading way?

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

Tim,
I am paraphrasing but didn't God define marriage as a man leaving his father and THEN becoming one with his wife. You keep hitting on the second part while disregarding the first.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

I will make an inference,
The man leaving his father implies that he is ready to support/raise/care for a family on his own. That is not what teenages have in mind on Saturday night.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> [I don't think he is trying to justify multiple sex partners. I think he is trying to say that sex basically makes the couple man and wife, and if they break up it is sinful as divorce.



And this, as I have already argued, has no scriptural basis whatsoever. As I said before, marriage is an institution with a necessarily public aspect. It's not _just_ between two people and God... it's between two people, God, and their community. I honestly think much of this idea that "it's all right if you're going to get married" goes straight back to the movement toward individualism and away from the concept of a covenant community. 

Really, if you are in a situation where you believe you are ready to be "man and wife before God" (though such a thing does NOT exist outside of being man and wife before God and everyone), why don't you go ahead and get married? Are you not financially ready to support yourselves? Then you're unable to meet the basic marriage requirement of leaving your parents and cleaving to each other. Do you lack the maturity to get married? All the more reason why you should _not_ have sex--are you ready to handle the potential pregnancy that might arise? Pretty much any good reason to hold off on marriage necessitates holding off on sex, too... For whatever reason you aren't ready for formal marriage, you aren't prepared for the potential consequences of sex. If you aren't ready to be married before the community, there is no reason to think you are ready to be married in some mystical union before God.

And if you're only holding off on the marriage because you need a year to plan your dream wedding and yet you can't control yourself physically in the meantime... see above argument about immaturity.

(Note: Though I'm using the second person, here, I realize that you do not believe this, Tim. "You" is generic.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> And if you're only holding off on the marriage because you need a year to plan your dream wedding and yet you can't control yourself physically in the meantime... see above argument about immaturity.




Good one!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

First of all, you don't know me well enough to say I am 'flipping out'. Secondly, what words have I put in your mouth? I have quoted you, have I not? Thirdly, I have not said that you are trying to 'justify covenant unfaithfulness', have I? Show me where I have said this? I have in fact challenged you (again) in regards to your hermeneutic and your proposition, the same hermeneutic and same proposition you used in the other thread. I have said clearly that the inference of scripture and history disagree with the premise. 

As far as Gabriel goes, He showed little respect in his comment.


> Scott, I think your hermeneutic in reading this thread is flawed. Do you even know what Tim is trying to say?



I am not attacking your character. Have I said antything about you personally? No. Gabriel incites ad hominem; sad. 



> I am not justifying sex out of marriage. I am only revealing another view.



It is another view that has no place inb Christianity; in fact, I have never heard anyone orthodox argue this point; ever!

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Tim,
> I am paraphrasing but didn't God define marriage as a man leaving his father and THEN becoming one with his wife. You keep hitting on the second part while disregarding the first.



This doesn't change anything in both views.

Lets refer to this in the instance of the father giving his daughter.

The man could go to the father and make his intentions known that he wants to begin a covenant wth the daughter. Then the ceremony would be making official your covenant.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> What defines marriage: The ceremony, or the act of becoming one flesh?



BOTH. Nowhere in the Bible is a couple considered married simply because they have had sex.

Marriage is a covenant. Covenant making between two humans requires witnesses. This is somewhat similar to the argument that "I don't really have to be baptized, since my faith is what really unites me to Christ." Yes, our union to Christ through faith is the heart of the thing, but we are also commanded to signify our participation in the covenant through a public sign. How much more does a covenant between two fallible humans, who do not have God's infinite faithfulness, need to be confirmed by a public sign? In extreme circumstances, we understand that baptism, though ordinarily necessary, is not absolutely necessary (such as the thief on the cross). It might also be possible that there are extreme circumstances that would allow a couple to be "married" without a public ceremony... I'm thinking something along the lines of being stranded on a desert island, but even here, I'm not sure. And such situations do not occur in real life. In any case, you can be pretty sure that the majority of couples asking this question are not in this kind of situation or even close. If you have an opportunity to make your covenant between each other public, there is absolutely no reason not to do so.

Of course, baptism isn't a perfect analogy at all, since baptism can either precede or succeed regeneration and thus "actual" covenant inclusion. However, a person would not be admitted to the covenant community without this sign, and the community should not consider a couple married without the external sign of a ceremony with at least some witnesses. And whether the community considers you married is a very big deal, especially considering that the church ought to discipline you for fornication if you aren't married in their eyes.

Bottom line: Two humans simply do not have the authority to make a covenant between themselves without other humans as witnesses. It's not a real covenant until it's made public, and until it's a confirmed covenant, you don't get the covenant benefit of sex.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 17, 2005)

When you have sex outside of marriage are you honoring God?

When you have sex before marriage (or curse for that matter) do you;

Matt 22:37(b) love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

Evie, 
Forgive me. 

Tim writes:



> Where is this scriptural? This is what I have always believed and believed to be IN the Bible. However, like I said I haven't taken this to scripture as much as I should yet. So help me out here.



Like I said, it is _necessarily, positively, inferred,_ throughout the bible. Tim, do you accept the doctrine of the trinity?

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> When you have sex outside of marriage are you honoring God?
> 
> When you have sex before marriage (or curse for that matter) do you;
> ...



In the second view sex is marriage


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > And this, as I have already argued, has no scriptural basis whatsoever. As I said before, marriage is an institution with a necessarily public aspect. It's not _just_ between two people and God... it's between two people, God, and their community.
> ...



I already explained this in my first post. See the OT commands to purge adultery from the land and the NT commands to the church not even to eat with the sexually immoral. Sexuality is not a private concern.



> > I honestly think much of this idea that "it's all right if you're going to get married" goes straight back to the movement toward individualism and away from the concept of a covenant community.
> 
> 
> 
> It is just a different view of the covenant familly.



A view of the covenant family with no biblical support. Throughout the Bible, marriage has been intimately tied to the covenant family (see above references and especially the longer analysis in my first post.) If someone comes up with a different view of the covenant family from what Reformed orthodoxy has held to, he'd better present some pretty solid biblical evidence. As it is, we have no reason to believe that the covenant family isn't intimately tied to marriage and sexuality. There can be no doubt that the church is expected to punish the sexually immoral. If the couple isn't married in the eyes of the church, if they have sex, they are fornicators in the eyes of the church (even if you think they are married in the sight of God) and subject to _being completely cut off from covenant fellowship_. It certainly doesn't seem like it's just okay.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> A view of the covenant family with no biblical support. Throughout the Bible, marriage has been intimately tied to the covenant family (see above references and especially the longer analysis in my first post.) If someone comes up with a different view of the covenant family from what Reformed orthodoxy has held to, he'd better present some pretty solid biblical evidence. As it is, we have no reason to believe that the covenant family isn't intimately tied to marriage and sexuality. There can be no doubt that the church is expected to punish the sexually immoral. If the couple isn't married in the eyes of the church, if they have sex, they are fornicators in the eyes of the church (even if you think they are married in the sight of God) and subject to _being completely cut off from covenant fellowship_. It certainly doesn't seem like it's just okay.



End of Discussion. Debate is over.



Tim,
With all respect, your argument is predicated on good & necessary consequence being a bad hermeneutic. We accept GNC. You have to show us that GNC is faulty, should not be used, and be prepared to accept the doctrinal consequences.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Jacob,
That is what I have been saying since the other thread; to remain consistant, the premise would have to be taken to it's logical conclussion, hence denying all other doctrines, i.e. the Trinitry, NT tithing, Woman at the supper and everything else from scripture that is gleened via NI.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 17, 2005)

I still believe these kind of things are based on a diminished view of sin. I believe it was RC Sproul who said (paraphrasing) "I don't obey God for 5 seconds let alone for 5 minutes or 5 hours."

We need to broaden our view of sin rather than shrink it.

God forgive us.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 17, 2005)

Ok Tim here you go. Read 1 Cor. 7. It is pretty clear that Paul is saying either remain a virgin or marry in this chapter. Those are the choices. Then in verse 8 it says the following:

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

If your "friend" is still unconvinced then he is supressing the truth in unrighteousness IMNSHO because it is pretty clear to me and the rest of the world throughout history. The direct result of sex being a child is also a REALLY big hint from God because He is pretty clear that "households" need a head just as the "church" needs its head and we get those by entering into covenant relationships like Ex Nihilo stated.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 17, 2005)

Could it be stated that sex is the sign and seal of the marriage covenant?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 17, 2005)

First, you have to be kidding if you think that sex before marriage is okay. It is not only inferred but directly stated all throughout the Scripture. The Bible definitely does say that to have sex before you are married is a sin. (I will list verses and define words in a moment.)

Secondly, you also have to be kidding if you believe that the act of sex makes you married. You can be married without having sex, and you can have sex without being married. It really is that simple.

Marriage is entering a covenant relationship and is defined by both the Scriptures and the laws laws of the nation you live in. If having sex was all it took to be married then what about the case where a person's first sex act is homosexual? Are they married? Or what if it is a child molested by an adult? Are they married? Entering a marriage, therefore, cannot be defined as "having sex." 


Now for the proof:

First, does sex equal marriage?

Exodus 22:16-17 - a man could refuse to allow his daughter to marry a man who she had sex with. So marriage was not initiated with sex. 

John 8:11 - when Jesus forgave the prostitute "caught in the act" He did not say, "Go back to your husband, the first man you ever slept with." He said, "Go and sin no more." 

John 4:18 - He also talked with the woman at the well and said that the man she was living with at the time was not her husband!! She had had so many, but this one was not a husband. What was different? Not the sex!! 

Matthew 19:6 - Further, God makes the husband and wife one flesh - but nowhere do the Scriptures say that sex makes you one flesh! Being one flesh is more than physical union. Intimacy is just one part of a husband and wife being "glued" together. 

The Bible nowhere teaches that sex _initiates_ the marital covenant. Marriage is a covenant relationship _consummated_ by sex - not entered into when we first have sex! 

So what does the Bible say about having sex before marriage?

*Acts 15*
22Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23They wrote this letter by them: 

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, 

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: 

Greetings. 

24Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"-to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, *to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things*: 29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from *sexual immorality*. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.



The word in the Greek (porneas) is also translated "fornication" and it means literally, "sexual immoraltiy, prostitution, unchastity, or fornication and it includes any kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. To be chaste is to be celibate, so to be unchaste is to have had sex. And fornication is and always has been defined as "voluntary sexual intercourse between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman."

So let's examine more:

Galatians 5:19 lists sex before marriage as a work of the flesh (definitely a sin!).

Ephesians 5:3 says it is not fitting for saints.

Colossians 3:5 lists it as a sin we are to put to death, to mortify and put away from us.

So what else does the Bible say about sex before marriage?

Well, in the Old Testament you could be killed for it!

Romans 1 lists sexual immorality (ie illegal sex acts) as a work of those turned over by God to a debased mind.

1 Corinthians 18 says that we are to FLEE sexual immorality. And 1 Thessalonians 4:13 says that we should ABSTAIN from sexual immorality.

To deny that sex before marriage is sin, to try to work around it by redefining marriage as equal to sex, or to think that the Bible is not clear about these things is to miss what the Bible says about sex, family, marriage, covenants, the laws of government, obedience, self control, wickedness, and depravity.

Phillip


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 17, 2005)

Yay Phillip!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 17, 2005)

Also, good comments Scott and Jacob on interpretation. And good job Evie on pointing out the biblical nature of the family.



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Ok Tim here you go. Read 1 Cor. 7. It is pretty clear that Paul is saying either remain a virgin or marry in this chapter. Those are the choices. Then in verse 8 it says the following:
> 
> 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.



That is basically as explicit as it gets. If sex made marriage then that instruction would be meaningless.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Could it be stated that sex is the sign and seal of the marriage covenant?



It is very interesting that you make that analogy, which I assume is a parallel to circumcision and baptism as the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace. The ironic thing is, while baptism is the act that brings one into the external Covenant of Grace, it is not legitimate unless performed lawfully according to the pre-existing guidelines of that covenant. Likewise, even if we were to grant your idea of sex being the sign and seal of the marriage covenant, along the lines of that analogy it would not be legitimate unless performed lawfully according to the pre-existing guidelines of that covenant.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 17, 2005)

I would add to my post above that we need to remember that the word "pornea" includes all "illegal" sex. That means that there is such a thing as "legal" sex. The Bible defines legal sex (the bed undefiled) as sex between a man and woman who are married to each other. 

This means that illegal sex, and therfore SINFUL sex, is any sex and all sex acts that are outside of that marriage relationship.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 17, 2005)

Also, to hold that sex is what definitively makes marriage, you would have to view it as completely biblically lawful for a Christian man to go through the full wedding ceremony with his fiance, but then before having sex with her, he meets a woman in the airport on the way to their honeymoon and decides he likes her better, so he goes and has sex with her and thus declares himself married to her, since after all, he wasn't quite married to the other woman. The implications are absurd.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 17, 2005)

Phillip's post is excellent. Let me just add two brief comments with respect to the fact that the Bible militates against the idea that having sex causes one to be married:

Genesis 38: We have absolutely no indication that Judah married Tamar. In fact, he sends her away.

John 4:
If sex equals marriage, then either:
1. Our Lord was wrong when he said that the man the woman lived with "was not her husband"

or 

2. The woman lived with the man, and considered him her husband, and yet was completely platonic with him (an impossibly strained reading)

The better reading is that the premise that sex=marriage is a flawed hermeneutic.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Also, to hold that sex is what definitively makes marriage, you would have to view it as completely biblically lawful for a Christian man to go through the full wedding ceremony with his fiance, but then before having sex with her, he meets a woman in the airport on the way to their honeymoon and decides he likes her better, so he goes and has sex with her and thus declares himself married to her, since after all, he wasn't quite married to the other woman. The implications are absurd.



Or that if a man and woman in their limo are hit by a truck before they get to the honeymoon suite, they are never really married.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 17, 2005)

Let's just give a Calvin-like shrug and conclude that since the Bible forbids fornication (Col. 3:5), and fornication is sex before marriage, then sex before marriage is wrong. Why? God knows. And that's all that matters. 

[Edited on 2/18/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 17, 2005)

This one's got a fork in it..........


----------

