I'm doing a personal study right now on Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, etc. I find Bahnsen's article on Marriage and Divorce to be very helpful. It's really framing my opinions on the whole issue. I find his discussions of covenantal violations, etc. to be really helpful. However, one issue popped into my head and I can't seem to find an answer to it anywhere, from a theonomic perspective. What happens if a wife/husband refuses to have children with the other spouse? What happens if the other spouse becomes incorrigible in this area? With our modern day of career seekers it's a relevant issue. I'm stuck. Any help?
A Theonomic view on Marriage & Divorce
- Thread starter Reformed1
- Start date
- Status
CalsFarmer
Puritan Board Freshman
I have no real answers for you but that issue SHOULD have been resolved PRIOR TO THE ENGAGEMENT.
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
Grace, believe me (and you have probably observed this as well), there are many cases *outside* the Covenant/Reformed Community (i.e. in "the world" and in Evangelicalism/Charismania) where this and other critical issues are not resolved _prior to the wedding_, much less the engagement.
This is all very, very terrible and sad - a indictiment against how little God's truth concerning marriage is honored. There are many young adults who simply never developed the character and convictions necessary to understand the gravity of these things.
Unfortunately, many today simply see marriage as a "sanctioned container for the bed" with some economic advantages thrown in for good measure.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Brian speaks the truth.
Now in all fairness, there's been a revival (of sorts) in the non-reformed/evangelical and charismatic community regarding a proper view of marriage and children. Even heretics like Creflo Dollar are pretty biblical in this area in how men and women should relate to oneanother and who's in charge in marriage.
Now in all fairness, there's been a revival (of sorts) in the non-reformed/evangelical and charismatic community regarding a proper view of marriage and children. Even heretics like Creflo Dollar are pretty biblical in this area in how men and women should relate to oneanother and who's in charge in marriage.
CalsFarmer
Puritan Board Freshman
Define..."Who's in charge". Exactly what do you mean by this? An inquiring female mind would like to know. You make biblical submission sound like some sort of forced military exercise. Are you saying that women need someone to take charge of them completely and totally so that their only use in life is defined by what the in charge person says it is?
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
Kerry,
Good points!
I don't doubt for a minute that Biblically accurate views of Marriage are being didactically presented outside of the conservative Reformed/Covenantal camps. What concerns me is larger view of the sacredness of the family as THE God ordained place to prepare young people for their future and to help them determine if, when, and whom to marry. A very "rich soil" must be established and cultivated for this type of family to develop and grow. I believe that this effort can only exist when the Chruch recognizes its responsiblity to in this matter and works tirelessly to help create the proper environment for it. In my varied Christian experiences (over the past 30 years), I've observed that conservative Reformed/Covenantal Church communities provide the most wholistic Biblical opportunity for this - including the instruction, encouragement, and admonishment to husbands, wives, and singe parents who are struggling at it.
... just my 2 cents
Good points!
I don't doubt for a minute that Biblically accurate views of Marriage are being didactically presented outside of the conservative Reformed/Covenantal camps. What concerns me is larger view of the sacredness of the family as THE God ordained place to prepare young people for their future and to help them determine if, when, and whom to marry. A very "rich soil" must be established and cultivated for this type of family to develop and grow. I believe that this effort can only exist when the Chruch recognizes its responsiblity to in this matter and works tirelessly to help create the proper environment for it. In my varied Christian experiences (over the past 30 years), I've observed that conservative Reformed/Covenantal Church communities provide the most wholistic Biblical opportunity for this - including the instruction, encouragement, and admonishment to husbands, wives, and singe parents who are struggling at it.
... just my 2 cents
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I can't speak for Kerry, but I can offer a couple Scriptures:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her . . . husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:25-28)
A woman does NOT need someone to "take charge" of her
completely", as you said. Rather, she needs a husband who will love her like Christ loves the church, with a deep sacrificial love. Any man who is out to "take charge completely" is not fit for marriage. Rather, it is the *woman* who should offer her full submission *freely*, not through coercion.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. . . . just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. " (Ephesians 5:22-24)
To what extent should wives submit to their husbands? The answer is, "100%". Scripture commands wives to submit to their husbands "in everything". (Of course the *only* exception would be if her husband told her to do something explicitly against God's Word.)
So, should the husband forcefully "take charge completely"? No.
But, should the wife fully submit to her husband 100%, freely giving him full charge? Yes.
[Edited on 10-19-2005 by biblelighthouse]
CalsFarmer
Puritan Board Freshman
I completely and totally DISAGREE with the 100% submission you require. What if hubby is spending money on p0rn, booze, women and song? What if he is gambling? what if he does not properly support the family?
Your definition of biblical submission is a license for a man to do anything he wants to do at the expnse of his wife. It is NOT.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
What if? Those decisions are on HIS head, not yours. If you do not follow God's commands then that falls on YOUR head.
There were many times that I overstepped my husband because I thought he was making a wrong or foolish decision. I've since learned that sometimes I was the one that was wrong and that he needs to be able to make those mistakes.
This thread is going the way of the the other submission thread. Let's get it back on track. If you want see this thread http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11674&page=1 where the dead horse has already been beaten
God is in control of who has children and when. As far as one "deciding" chemically or surgically not to have children: 1) it should have been discussed beforehand. 2) there is nothing that keeps it from continuing as a discussion (ie, my husband suddenly spooked early in our marriage and decided he didn't want children...I kept the conversation up). 3) The husband, yes, does make the final decision. Is is always right...the right decision, maybe not...right in that he made the decision, yes. Why? Because God decreed that man was the head of the family not woman.
I think the questions on this issue show the hold feminism has taken on the church today. They use the extremes to overthrow God's commands rather than trust God's Providence and that God has created and used circumstances for His Will and Glory. One lady I know noted that submission was not about trusting her husband, but about trusting God.
Added note: "Submission IF" is not submission.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by LadyFlynt]
There were many times that I overstepped my husband because I thought he was making a wrong or foolish decision. I've since learned that sometimes I was the one that was wrong and that he needs to be able to make those mistakes.
This thread is going the way of the the other submission thread. Let's get it back on track. If you want see this thread http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11674&page=1 where the dead horse has already been beaten
God is in control of who has children and when. As far as one "deciding" chemically or surgically not to have children: 1) it should have been discussed beforehand. 2) there is nothing that keeps it from continuing as a discussion (ie, my husband suddenly spooked early in our marriage and decided he didn't want children...I kept the conversation up). 3) The husband, yes, does make the final decision. Is is always right...the right decision, maybe not...right in that he made the decision, yes. Why? Because God decreed that man was the head of the family not woman.
I think the questions on this issue show the hold feminism has taken on the church today. They use the extremes to overthrow God's commands rather than trust God's Providence and that God has created and used circumstances for His Will and Glory. One lady I know noted that submission was not about trusting her husband, but about trusting God.
Added note: "Submission IF" is not submission.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by LadyFlynt]
CalsFarmer
Puritan Board Freshman
For whats its worth. I for one am glad that God has provided in HIs word the proper protection for a woman and thats its not incumbent on my husband to have final word. Its Gods.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Unless your husband is specifically asking you to sin, then for you to step out from under that is sin in and of itself. God does not contradict Himself. Be careful that you are not being merely wise in your own eyes.
I think this thread is finish. If anyone wishes to continue it on it's original track, let me know and I will reopen it for that purpose alone.
I think this thread is finish. If anyone wishes to continue it on it's original track, let me know and I will reopen it for that purpose alone.
- Status
Similar threads
