Sex as the seal of the Marriage Covenant

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by WrittenFromUtopia, Feb 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fredtgreco

    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]
     
  2. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Bzzt! Wrong.
     
  3. LadyFlynt

    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.
     
  4. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    That is not a rebuttal...
     
  5. ABondSlaveofChristJesus

    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]
     
  6. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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.
     
  7. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    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:
     
  8. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate



    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.
     
  9. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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.
     
  10. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    :ditto:
     
  11. WrittenFromUtopia

    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...

     
  12. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor



    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]
     
  13. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member



    1. 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...
     
  14. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Hebrews 10 does not describe covenant breaking, then.
     
  15. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Oh, I now see that #3 was not talking of a man having sex with a wife and then marrying another later. That changes things.
     
  16. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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.
     
  17. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Oh my gosh. Someone kill me. I never said that nor implied it. My goodness gracious. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
     
  18. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    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.
     
  19. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member



    1. You said that here: ------^
     
  20. WrittenFromUtopia

    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]
     
  21. LadyFlynt

    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?
     
  22. WrittenFromUtopia

    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]
     
  23. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    so you are saying that is not a neccessary sign or seal?
     
  24. jatkins_1

    jatkins_1 Puritan Board Freshman

     
  25. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    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]
     
  26. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  27. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    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?
     
  28. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    No, the bible dopes not describe this as an assault on the marriage covenant (sic); it calls it plainly, fornication.
     
  29. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  30. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Actually, Scripture is clear that sexual relations belong with the covenant of marriage alone. (Hebrews 13:4)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page