Sex as the seal of the Marriage Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
So does that mean that by your argument the second night of a two-night stand is not fornication?
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, Scripture is clear that sexual relations belong with the covenant of marriage alone. (Hebrews 13:4)
I'm sorry, I forgot you are perfect and never make a typing mistake.


So does that mean that by your argument the second night of a two-night stand is not fornication?
This better be a joke. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you. You ignore my clear argument in this thread repeatedly.
 

ABondSlaveofChristJesus

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.
So marrage is complete at the engagement? What is the significance of circumcision?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
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.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
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, 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.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
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?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
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.
:ditto:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.
So marrage is complete at the engagement? What is the significance of circumcision?
Marriage is complete at the taking of the covenant promises. The significance of circumcision is that it is a sign of the substance.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
The above does not establish your claim however, that being that sexual relations is a sign and seal of the MC.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

:tombstone:
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
This is not an issue to break fellowship over and certainly does not necessitate resorting to insults and condescending remarks
:ditto:
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
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)
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Sex is an act and gift to be reserved for marriage...but it has no special attributes to the marriage covenant.
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.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
"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]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
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.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I think that may be the problem then...a misunderstanding due to strong wording. (it's happened many a time ;) )
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Sex is an act and gift to be reserved for marriage...but it has no special attributes to the marriage covenant.
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.

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.

Topic closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top