Sex as the seal of the Marriage Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Gabriel,

Please describe the differences (or similarities) between:


  1. A man who after a wedding ceremony, decides on the way to the reception that he really doesn't love the woman and abandons her
  2. A man who has a physical affair afterhe has been married for a year (including sexual relations with his wife)
  3. A man who has sexual relations with a woman once, and a year later, marries a different woman.
    [/list=1]
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
And if a woman were to be divorced during a betrothal (even if she was blameless)and then married another, she would be considered an adulterous. I think you are the one trying to place a modern spin on it.
 

ABondSlaveofChristJesus

Puritan Board Freshman
Ok things are becoming Chaotic, so let me just throw out what everyone is saying.... Define the two sides so to speak.

1.) What is the Biblical Definition of a Covenant.

Historical context of the Biblical Covenants seems to imply it as twofold.

1.) Began - based on a decision
2.) Completed - a physical representation with a significant spiritual implication.

So what defines the marriage Covenant?

Lets parallel it to the Abrahamic one.

1.) Began- based on a decision

Abrahamic- covenantal Birth

Marriage- Engagement

2.) Completed - a physical representation with a significant spiritual implication.

Abrahamic- Cutting of Flesh (physical representation) signifying removal of the flesh (consistent spirtual implication.)

Marriage- intercourse physical connection of one flesh (physical representation) signifying the spiritual union/ one flesh.

Are you labeling the ceremony as the consumation? What is the consistent spiritual implication?

Where is the ceremony deemed marriage?

Where is the consumation and what is its spiritual significance? What are Biblical Covenants that do not have consumations?

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Sex has nothing to do with the marriage covenant??? Okay...

What's the difference between profaning a covenant and breaking it?

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
One can profane a covenant without ever being a part of it. For example, a person could profane the Covenant of Grace without ever being in it (e.g. an avowed atheist that was never baptized) . One can only break a covenant that one was a party to. That is the crucial distinction that you are missing. I would agree that pre-marital sex is a profaning of marriage. It is not a breaking of the covenant of marriage.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Yes, it was called divorce...because they were contractually married (covenanted).
Bzzt! Wrong.
Gabriel,
You say that Colleen is (bzzzt) wrong, yet she is the one whom holds the reformed, orthodox view. The only people whom have agreed with you are your roommates. History refutes you, the present day church refutes you; scripture refutes you..........lets see, whose left?:cool:
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabriel,

Please describe the differences (or similarities) between:


  1. A man who after a wedding ceremony, decides on the way to the reception that he really doesn't love the woman and abandons her
  2. A man who has a physical affair afterhe has been married for a year (including sexual relations with his wife)
  3. A man who has sexual relations with a woman once, and a year later, marries a different woman.
    [/list=1]


  1. They are all committing adultery and guilty of breaking the covenant of marriage. Sex is to be done only within a lawfully formed marriage covenant.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Ok things are becoming Chaotic, so let me just throw out what everyone is saying.... Define the two sides so to speak.

1.) What is the Biblical Definition of a Covenant.

Historical context of the Biblical Covenants seems to imply it as twofold.

1.) Began - based on a decision
2.) Completed - a physical representation with a significant spiritual implication.
Um, wrong. Paul contradicts this in Romans 3:9, where he decidedly shows that the covenant of grace and Abrahamic covenants were complete BEFORE he received the sign of circumcision.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Sex has nothing to do with the marriage covenant??? Okay...

What's the difference between profaning a covenant and breaking it?

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
One can profane a covenant without ever being a part of it. For example, a person could profane the Covenant of Grace without ever being in it (e.g. an avowed atheist that was never baptized) . One can only break a covenant that one was a party to. That is the crucial distinction that you are missing. I would agree that pre-marital sex is a profaning of marriage. It is not a breaking of the covenant of marriage.
:ditto:
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
All of orthodox Church history disagrees with the fact that having sex outside of marriage is profaning the covenant of marriage and bringing upon those involved the judgment of God?

I'm interested in this passage, since sex has no meaning and isn't important at all for marriage to be legitimate...

1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabriel,

Please describe the differences (or similarities) between:


  1. A man who after a wedding ceremony, decides on the way to the reception that he really doesn't love the woman and abandons her
  2. A man who has a physical affair afterhe has been married for a year (including sexual relations with his wife)
  3. A man who has sexual relations with a woman once, and a year later, marries a different woman.
    [/list=1]


  1. They are all committing adultery and guilty of breaking the covenant of marriage. Sex is to be done only within a lawfully formed marriage covenant.


  1. #3 is Fornication not adultery and he was not in the covenant and therefore could not break it, only profane it.

    [Edited on 2-18-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabriel,

Please describe the differences (or similarities) between:


  1. A man who after a wedding ceremony, decides on the way to the reception that he really doesn't love the woman and abandons her
  2. A man who has a physical affair afterhe has been married for a year (including sexual relations with his wife)
  3. A man who has sexual relations with a woman once, and a year later, marries a different woman.
    [/list=1]


  1. They are all committing adultery and guilty of breaking the covenant of marriage. Sex is to be done only within a lawfully formed marriage covenant.


  1. If that is the case, then the Confession directly contradicts you:

    24.5 Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. (Matt. 1:18–20) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce. (Matt. 5:31–32) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Matt. 19:9, Rom. 7:2–3)
    The confession clearly delineates between the two. I would also like to see a reference to any reformed theologian who agrees with you. I won't hold my breath...
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
One can profane a covenant without ever being a part of it. For example, a person could profane the Covenant of Grace without ever being in it (e.g. an avowed atheist that was never baptized).
Hebrews 10 does not describe covenant breaking, then.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
All of orthodox Church history disagrees with the fact that having sex outside of marriage is profaning the covenant of marriage and bringing upon those involved the judgment of God?

I'm interested in this passage, since sex has no meaning and isn't important at all for marriage to be legitimate...

1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Again, your lack of systematic thinking here is evident. No one has said that sex is not important, or important in the context of marriage. No one has said that sex outside marriage is not a sin. No one has said that a spouse may withhold sexual relations with their spouse. That is what Paul is talking about here. But what Paul has not said here, and what you have failed to show at all from Scripture or even Church history, or even a single theologian, is that sexual relations is the equivalent of marriage. That you simply keep asserting, after offering the obligatory non sequitors.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
This is true; Jacob has stated clearly:
Sex is a sign and seal, the consummation, if you will, of marriage.

Not that that changes anything.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabriel,

Please describe the differences (or similarities) between:


  1. A man who after a wedding ceremony, decides on the way to the reception that he really doesn't love the woman and abandons her
  2. A man who has a physical affair afterhe has been married for a year (including sexual relations with his wife)
  3. A man who has sexual relations with a woman once, and a year later, marries a different woman.
    [/list=1]


  1. They are all committing adultery and guilty of breaking the covenant of marriage. Sex is to be done only within a lawfully formed marriage covenant.


  1. You said that here: ------^
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
No I didn't.

I clearly said that upon my first reading, I misread and saw #3 as a man being married, having sex and then having sex with someone else he married later. I retracted my grouping of all three statements as adultery.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Okay...then what do you mean by saying that it is a "seal"? If it seals a marriage...then are you not saying a marriage that hasn't been consumated is no marriage at all?
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I said that it was a sign and seal of the marriage covenant. If I have written elsewhere that it was THE sign and seal, I have mistyped.

Just as the formal ceremony is a sign and seal of the marriage covenant. You are all completely missing the point. This is not about sex being the only way to be married truly, but the fact that those who have sex outside of marriage are profaning the covenant of marriage as they are applying a seal/sign of the marriage covenant to them and their partner unlawfully, bringing upon themselves the judgment of God as profaning a covenant He has instituted with clear guidelines.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 

jatkins_1

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by fredtgreco
If that is the case, then the Confession directly contradicts you:
The confession clearly delineates between the two. I would also like to see a reference to any reformed theologian who agrees with you. I won't hold my breath...

When did the WCF become an authority above sccripture.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing the confessions says this and the confession says that. Heaven forbid someone disagree with the confession!:banghead:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by fredtgreco
If that is the case, then the Confession directly contradicts you:
The confession clearly delineates between the two. I would also like to see a reference to any reformed theologian who agrees with you. I won't hold my breath...


When did the WCF become an authority above sccripture.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing the confessions says this and the confession says that. Heaven forbid someone disagree with the confession!:banghead:
Uhh Jacob. To begin with, the confessions are a comprisal of paasages supporting a biblical premise. Secondly, we would love for you to present scripture...........please.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
so you are saying that is not a neccessary sign or seal?
This doesn't even apply to our discussion, at least not from its original intent. It is a sign or seal of marriage. Therefore, to participate in it unlawfully is to profane the covenant of marriage, and go against the terms of the covenant of marriage, wherein it is clear in Scripture that marriage belongs within the covenant of marriage terms alone.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by jatkins_1
Originally posted by fredtgreco
If that is the case, then the Confession directly contradicts you:
The confession clearly delineates between the two. I would also like to see a reference to any reformed theologian who agrees with you. I won't hold my breath...

When did the WCF become an authority above sccripture.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing the confessions says this and the confession says that. Heaven forbid someone disagree with the confession!:banghead:
No one ever said that the Confession was above Scripture. Since when does the Church have no authority? Since when are you above the Church?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
so you are saying that is not a neccessary sign or seal?
This doesn't even apply to our discussion, at least not from its original intent. It is a sign or seal of marriage. Therefore, to participate in it unlawfully is to profane the covenant of marriage, and go against the terms of the covenant of marriage, wherein it is clear in Scripture that marriage belongs within the covenant of marriage terms alone.
No, the bible dopes not describe this as an assault on the marriage covenant (sic); it calls it plainly, fornication.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
No, the bible dopes not describe this as an assault on the marriage covenant (sic); it calls it plainly, fornication.
for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
n.
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

Thank you for proving my argument. I rest my case.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
so you are saying that is not a neccessary sign or seal?
This doesn't even apply to our discussion, at least not from its original intent. It is a sign or seal of marriage. Therefore, to participate in it unlawfully is to profane the covenant of marriage, and go against the terms of the covenant of marriage, wherein it is clear in Scripture that marriage belongs within the covenant of marriage terms alone.
Actually, Scripture is clear that sexual relations belong with the covenant of marriage alone. (Hebrews 13:4)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top