Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by WrittenFromUtopia, Feb 18, 2005.
So does that mean that by your argument the second night of a two-night stand is not fornication?
I'm sorry, I forgot you are perfect and never make a typing mistake.
This better be a joke. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you. You ignore my clear argument in this thread repeatedly.
So marrage is complete at the engagement? What is the significance of circumcision?
The fact that sexual relations is reserved for the married couple, proves nothing in regards to your premise. This says nothing about a sign or seal, just that it is a gift from God for the married.
Actually, it does apply. In a debate it is sometimes neccessary to ask questions to get a better grasp of where the other side is at PRECISELY. Or, if they contradict themselves then it can be pointed out. Thus it was a reasonally question.
Did you or did you not state that pre-marital sex was a breaking of the covenant of marriage? How can one break a covenant one is not in?
And if one is not breaking the covenant of marriage, how can it be adultery to enter into a covenant of marriage after pre-marital sex?
Unless scriptural support, NI or history is used, this thread is going no where. The burden of proof rests upon your premise Gabriel, Tim and Jacob. Anty up, because if not, I will close this thread again within the hour.
Marriage is complete at the taking of the covenant promises. The significance of circumcision is that it is a sign of the substance.
Simple, simple, simple:
1. Is marriage a covenant relationship?
2. Is sex reserved only for the covenant relationship of marriage?
If "yes" to both, then:
1. Sex before marriage is participating in an action reserved only for the covenant relationship of marriage.
2. Profaning a covenant God has instituted is an action that brings severe consequences from God Himself.
Now THAT we all can agree on! But that is totally different than this idea that sex is a sign and seal of marriage.
I don't see how. If marriage is a covenant, and sex is a sacred institution reserved only for this covenant, then sex is a sign of the covenant of marriage.
The above does not establish your claim however, that being that sexual relations is a sign and seal of the MC.
I disagree. I'm perfectly content to agree to disagree at this point. This is not an issue to break fellowship over and certainly does not necessitate resorting to insults and condescending remarks, especially among Christian brothers, who are equal in God's eyes through Christ Jesus. Amen? Amen.
Guys this is getting way out of hand.
I suggest that all of you go for a nice long walk. Enjoy the fresh air. Thank God for the beautiful day (even if it's raining).
Many of you may remember I got into a debate like this a few months ago, and most of us involved said some pretty uncharitable things (fortunately, we've gotten past it and get along well now).
PLEASE don't make the same mistake! I really regret the things that I said; please don't put yourself in the same situation.
I don't see where anyone was condescending. Truth be told, we are trying find where you are getting this idea and correct a view that may be taken overboard. (I've had a few on this board do the same with me on certain issues.) No one is trying to be offending.
Sex is an act and gift to be reserved for marriage...but it has no special attributes to the marriage covenant. (for lack of a better way of putting it)
In my opinion, the fact that sex is reserved for marriage (and since marriage is a covenant) makes it a special attribute of the marriage covenant.
"of" not "to". It is a gift granted to those within the covenant. It is not neccessary for the creation of the covenant.
[Edited on 2-18-2005 by LadyFlynt]
No kidding ... I never claimed this. Ever.
but is that not what it means to say it is a seal? Does Baptism "seal" the covenant with God?
I think using the word seal might be misleading, and I can consider re-thinking the proper use of that word in this case.
I think that may be the problem then...a misunderstanding due to strong wording. (it's happened many a time )
You say potato, I say french fries.
I mean .. freedom fries.
The thread is done. I asked for the typical proofs; scripture, history or present day; none were presented. Thank you Gabriel for finally coming out with the rationale you are utilizing to support this claim. It is solely opinion; I can respect you for that. You have your right to an opinion.