Cohabitation

[Jim1999]

In Canada, the church is recognized. For example, a couple may have their banns published for three successive Sundays with at least one member present (bride or groom). They may then be married by a minister without requiring a licence. The minister fills out the papers, signs them, along with his number. The legal part is then done by paperwork submitted by the minister.

Or, a couple may apply for a licence and then seek a minister, civil servant or judge to marry them.

The civil part is for legal purposes otherwise a couple can live together commonlaw and will be deemed to be married before the government or the courts after one year.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[saturneptune]

No, for a number of reasons. First, the Bible doesn't give this responsibility to the church to guide the state in anything. Second, marriage existed and was governed long before the church.

In a word, No. Marriage is no more a matter of conscience than fornication, adultery, stealing, paying taxes, etc. It is a matter of law. If a man and woman cannot in good conscience bring the state into their union (which doens't even make any sense ... how the state in a marriage??), then they should not get married.

But you don't get to disregard Scripture and the state simply because your conscience is badly trained.

Where in Genesis when marriage is established does the state enter into the picture?

As you said a few times in a repeated post, the church is not the pillar of truth for marriage. Then what is? Is the local New Testement church not here to carry out the things God instituted? So if there is no mandate for the church to establish standards for marriage, what is the standard, the state, run by basically self-centered, power hungry thieves?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Matt. 19:6 "....what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

That is a clear distinction between what is a marriage in "God's eyes" and what is a marriage in the eyes of men.

No it's not. To be married in the eyes of man is to be married in the eyes of God.

So, if the government OK's multiple wives, it's ok in the eyes of God. And if the government OK's same s*x marriages (as some governments already have) we are bound to accept it?

No,we are not bound to accept anything that is contrary to God's word. I already said that.

Is it societal? Or is it religious?

Or is it a private matter between a man and a woman and Almighty God?

It is both societal and religious. The point is that it is not an ordinance or responsibility of the church. The pastor has no right to "marry" a couple outside the laws of the state. Think about it ... what would happen if a couple came and said "We want to get divorced." Can the pastor just proclaim them divorced without going through the legal steps? Of course not. That's absurd. Marriage is no different. Private property is also an institution of God and we let the government make laws about that too. God has commanded us to obey the laws of the land. Marriage is not an exception.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where in Genesis when marriage is established does the state enter into the picture?

I don't know that it does enter in in Genesis, though certainly by the time of Exodus it has.

As you said a few times in a repeated post, the church is not the pillar of truth for marriage. Then what is? Is the local New Testement church not here to carry out the things God instituted?

Not all of them, no. God instituted families, yet it is not the church's responsibility corporately to carry that out. God instituted human government, and it is not the church's responsibility to carry that out either. God instituted civil/criminal justice, and it is not the church's responsibiility to carry that out.

So if there is no mandate for the church to establish standards for marriage, what is the standard, the state, run by basically self-centered, power hungry thieves?

Yes, the state, in my view. We already recognize this in that the state has age limits and we don't complain too much about that (though for this day and age the states age limits seem a little low). The bottom line is still that we, as Christians, are to live under the authority of the state. Since the state requires a marriage license, we are to have one before being married, and require the people whom we marry to obtain one prior to the marriage.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

OK guys interesting discussion, but I am going to try and steer this back on topic. What is a valid marriage in the eyes of God, the State, and our Churches may be 3 different things.

BUT - If a couple comes to you that is living together and wants you to perform their marriage ceremony will you? What options would you give them? You want them to get married right? What is more important, fixing the sinful condition they are living in at present or getting them to repent from the sinful way they have been living in the past?

I have heard preachers in the past talk about "marrying sam" referring to a preacher who will marry anyone. Members of my ordination council said, "Don't be a marrying sam." Why exactly is that wrong? As a minister I really don't have a lot to do with the wedding, it is "what God has joined together" not what I have done as a minister.

Isn't it better for a couple to get married in church rather than at a courthouse? Would not the act of being there for them and performing their wedding ceremony open door for ministry later. Even if they were not church members or Christians, wouldn't there be an opportunity for witness and ministry there?

 

[Pastor Larry]

OK guys interesting discussion, but I am going to try and steer this back on topic. What is a valid marriage in the eyes of God, the State, and our Churches may be 3 different things.

It may not be however, and before we decide what options there are, we have to decide what marriage actually is. Under most state laws, a marriage requires a license and a ceremony by a recognized person. Your approach seems to legitimate the old story of couples in the back seat who they are particularly randy and decide to "get married in the eyes of God" so they don't have to stop. If there are no requirements on marriage, then how do you stop that? You would say they aren't married, I imagine. But on what basis? The Bible doesn't tell us how to enter into a marriage, so far as I know.

BUT - If a couple comes to you that is living together and wants you to perform their marriage ceremony will you? What options would you give them?

It depends. Again, if marriage requires a license, marrying them on the spot is not a biblical option. They will leave no more married than they were when they came in. Vows are not some kind of hocus-pocus.

You want them to get married right?

Not necessarily. Two wrongs don't make a right. I wont' marry someone unless I am convinced it will last (though obviously there is no way to know, though there are indications). If one is unsaved, I don't want them marrying a saved person. If one of them is still married though separated, I don't want them getting married. If one of them is 18 and the other 40, I don't want them getting married in most cases. In other words, living together is not a justification.

What is more important, fixing the sinful condition they are living in at present or getting them to repent from the sinful way they have been living in the past?

Both are equally important.

Why exactly is that wrong?

Because marriage is not always right.

As a minister I really don't have a lot to do with the wedding, it is 'what God has joined together' not what I have done as a minister.

But how does God join people together?

Isn't it better for a couple to get married in church rather than at a courthouse?

I don't know why. I got married at a restaurant. Am I less married? If so, please don't tell my wife. She thinks we are actually married, and she gives me the benefits of it.

Would not the act of being there for them and performing their wedding ceremony open door for ministry later. Even if they were not church members or Christians, wouldn't there be an opportunity for witness and ministry there?

You might have a greater ministry by preaching the gospel and telling them they should not get married because of various reasons. Someday they may come back and thank you for not marrying them. In other words, you can't do this based on ministry opportunity. You do it based on what's right. If they are there asking you to marry them, you have the opportunity to minister to them now. Take it.

 

[Silas Dresden]

No such thing as 'marriage'

By 'marrying' you're talking about a church wedding 'ceremony' right? In the Middle Ages there was no such thing. People just lived together and were referred to as Man and Wife. It wasn't until fairly recently (in human terms) that the actual concept of a wedding 'ceremony' for the general masses became commonplace. Yes, there was 'marriage' and people had husbands and wives and recognised the concept of family, but it was much more akin to common-law 'living in sin' marriages that we talk about today. People who have a spiritual and physical union, in a long-term, exclusive, monogmous relationship are - as far as I can see - already 'married' in Gods eyes. The fact that a Minister hasn't blessed the union or official vows haven't been exchanged is neither here nor there. Adam and Eve didn't have a wedding did they?

 

[Jim1999]

I strongly suggest that everyone dig out their Bible Dictionaries and look up the word "marriage". You be shocked by what you read, and it is biblical.

Even marriage ceremonies in religious settings goes back a long ways. That betrothal we read about between Mary and Joseph was a first step religious and state function deemed to be "married".

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

I strongly suggest that everyone dig out their Bible Dictionaries and look up the word marriage. You be shocked by what you read, and it is biblical.

Yes, I agree. Marriage ceremonies such as we think of them are virtually non-existent. Ruth and Boaz could be considered a marriage ceremony, but we have no exchanging of vows,and it certainly wasn't religious, but civil (the kinsmen redeemer issue). We don't see the pomp and circumstance usually associate with today, and I know of no instance where a local church pastor performs a marriage. I think a lot of people tend to read our modern traditions back into the Bible, and they simply aren't there, as we can tell by looking at the Bible itself.

Even marriage ceremonies in religious settings goes back a long ways. That betrothal we read about between Mary and Joseph was a first step religious and state function deemed to be married

I don't see anything particularly religious about Mary and Joseph's betrothal. That was a civil thing under the Mosaic Law. In those times, it was more difficult to separate civil and religious, due to the theocracy, but not impossible. Again, a closer look at Scripture will be most instructive, particularly in disabusing ourselves of some notions about marriage.

 

[gb93433]

If we want to take a look at the biblical aspect of marriage, it was preceded by a betrothal. The betrothal was essentially an engagement period where the couple got ready for marriage by preparing a home, etc. The betrothal was also accompanied by a legal document and breaking the betrothal required a divorce.

If we do what Jesus did and take a look at what God wanted from the beginning that should be our focus. Anything else is second best.

If a couple wants to get married no church or pastor can stop that. A justice of the peace can easily take care of that.

 

[Jim1999]

Well, don't try to go back too far, but consider Henry VIII. He had several marriages and divorces and hence the Church of England. He did have formal weddings performed by the Archbishop. These are sort of recorded in profane history. So we had both religious an state involvement in his time.

The exchanging of vows is not new, but we can't compare it with what happens to-day. People even exchange vows to-day whilst jumpiing out of an aircraft and floating under a parachute.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Aaron]

No, for a number of reasons. First, the Bible doesn't give this responsibility to the church to guide the state in anything. Second, marriage existed and was governed long before the church.

As ground and pillar of the truth, the Church is to guide everyone. Go into all nations . . . teaching them to observe . . .

In a word, No. Marriage is no more a matter of conscience than fornication, adultery, stealing, paying taxes, etc. It is a matter of law.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. It is a matter of natural (or common) law, yes—not statutory law.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well, don't try to go back too far, but consider Henry VIII. He had several marriages and divorces and hence the Church of England. He did have formal weddings performed by the Archbishop. These are sort of recorded in profane history. So we had both religious an state involvement in his time.

I don't think anyone would deny that. But I don't think comparing a monarch who started his own church in order to divorce and remarry is the best kind of example to consider. My point is that in our society, state involvement in mandatory by virtue of law. Church involvement is not. This means that a pastor cannot give the couple the option of getting married on the spot if they do not have a license and other required things done. It is not a biblical option.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As ground and pillar of the truth, the Church is to guide everyone. Go into all nations . . . teaching them to observe

No. You cite the great commission which is a command to plant churches and make disciples. It is not a command about marriage. Furthermore being the pillar and ground of the truth is not a warrant for theonomy or anarchy. You don't get to make up your own laws or disobey the laws of the land under the guise of the church being the pillar and ground of the truth.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. It is a matter of natural (or common) law, yes—not statutory law.

I am not sure which state you live in (since "Heart of America" doesn't show up on my map), but here in Michigan, it is a matter of statutory law, as it was in Indiana where I got married, and in Ohio where I have performed marriages. So your state may be different, but I would check into it first. As people who follow God, we are bound to follow the governmental authority under which he in his providence has placed us. To encourage people to marry without following the laws of the state they live in is to encourage disobedience and sin.

 

[OldRegular]

So what do you do with a couple that is living together and wants to get married? Obviously we would rather they get married then continue living together right? But can we gloss over that sin with no repentance or acknowledgement? I can not.

It seems to me you omit one crucial bit of information. Were the couple members of the Church? If so and they were living in open sin then the process presented in Matthew should have been followed. Depending on the outcome they should have been allowed to marry or excluded from the Church.

 

[Aaron]

No. You cite the great commission which is a command to plant churches and make disciples.

I see in that commission the command to teach all nations to observe all things that Christ has commanded.

It is not a command about marriage.

Christ has no commands concerning marriage?

Furthermore being the pillar and ground of the truth is not a warrant for theonomy or anarchy.

Don't tell me what it isn't. Tell me what it is.

You don't get to make up your own laws . . .

Statutory law IS made up law. They are the ordinances of men. A statute may be good or destructive to the institution of marriage. If it is destructive, then men are under no obligation to obey it. (Common law, or Natural Law as it is called by some, is universal and does have authority over one's conscience.)

Without going into it* the ground that a couple yields to the state in their union is enough that some people believe that a license makes God's command of none effect, and you don't appear to have studied the issue, so let's just let that be that.

*I've found that the issue of marriage licensing is one of those things that one either accepts or doesn't, and no amount of arguing will change one's mind, so I've spared you all the gory details. Search it out yourself (and I mean more than just an Internet search.)

 

[Pastor Larry]

I see in that commission the command to teach all nations to observe all things that Christ has commanded.

Yes, but the command is to make disciples. To teach what Christ has commanded to unbelievers is not the point of the text. Part of what Christ taught was submission to human government, and that includes the issue of marriage licenses.

Christ has no commands concerning marriage?

Of course he does. Don't be silly. And don't take the GC out of context. It is about planting churches, not about marriage licenses.

Don't tell me what it isn't. Tell me what it is.

The church is to defend and propagate the truth.

Statutory law IS made up law. They are the ordinances of men.

Really?? So a statute against stealing is the ordinance of man? What about a statute about killing?

A statute may be good or destructive to the institution of marriage. If it is destructive, then men are under no obligation to obey it.

That is not the biblical requirements. The biblical requirement is to obey the government unless it requires you to disobey God.

(Common law, or Natural Law as it is called by some, is universal and does have authority over one's conscience.)

Depends on how the conscience is trained.

Without going into it* the ground that a couple yields to the state in their union is enough that some people believe that a license makes God's command of none effect, and you don't appear to have studied the issue, so let's just let that be that.

I think it fair to say that I have studied this more than you have. The bottom line is that having a marriage license is part of biblical obedience it the state requires it. If you disagree, then you are wrong. God said to submit to human government because he ordained it. Your problem is with God, not me.

Having a marriage license requires no violation of God's word that I am aware of. I am willing to entertain ideas if want to actually offer some. So far, I don't see where you have made an actual argument against marriage licenses using the Bible. If I recall correctly (and I am going from memory), you have simply offered your opinion which, with all due respect, does not seem grounded either in Scripture or in reality.

So here are some questions to help out here.

1. What biblical command is disobeyed by having a marriage license if the state requires it?

2. What do you say to people who live in countries that require marriages to be performed by civil government (such as Brazil or Mexico)? These countries do not recognize marriage performed in a church.

3. On what biblical basis do you argue that a believer is allowed to disobey the civil government in the matter of marriage?

 

[Aaron]

So far, I don't see where you have made an actual argument against marriage licenses using the Bible.

I'm not making an argument against marriage licenses. Pay attention. I said that some people cannot yield to the state that which they belive God has given to them. I myself, do not have a problem with licensing—yet. It depends on what is required for the license.

If I recall correctly (and I am going from memory), you have simply offered your opinion which, with all due respect, does not seem grounded either in Scripture or in reality.

My opinion of what? Marriage licensing? I have always argued that civil government has a duty to protect marriage. As long as the licensing is in that vein, then the statute is just and we're bound by the Scriptures to submit.

So here are some questions to help out here.

1. What biblical command is disobeyed by having a marriage license if the state requires it?

A license means that the act is forbidden without permission by the civil authority. The license is not merely a matter of record, it is permission granted to do something that without such permission is illegal. In other words, it is saying that no one has the natural right to marry. So my answer will depend upon the conditions required before before permission is granted. Give me a specific situation.

2. What do you say to people who live in countries that require marriages to be performed by civil government (such as Brazil or Mexico)? These countries do not recognize marriage performed in a church.

Again, you need to tell me what's required for a license to be granted in those countries. I don't know the statutes in Brazil or Mexico. Is birth control one of the conditions before permission to marry is granted?

3. On what biblical basis do you argue that a believer is allowed to disobey the civil government in the matter of marriage?

When the civil government imposes arbitrary or anti-biblical conditions before granting permission. Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils.

Your questions don't sound like you studied the issue as much as you boast.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

It seems to me you omit one crucial bit of information. Were the couple members of the Church? If so and they were living in open sin then the process presented in Matthew should have been followed. Depending on the outcome they should have been allowed to marry or excluded from the Church.

I dont see how the question of church membership is relevent. Lets say they are non church members, or if they were church members you were not aware they were living together until they asked you to perform the wedding.

 

[EdSutton]

By 'marrying' you're talking about a church wedding 'ceremony' right? In the Middle Ages there was no such thing. People just lived together and were referred to as Man and Wife. It wasn't until fairly recently (in human terms) that the actual concept of a wedding 'ceremony' for the general masses became commonplace. Yes, there was 'marriage' and people had husbands and wives and recognised the concept of family, but it was much more akin to common-law 'living in sin' marriages that we talk about today. People who have a spiritual and physical union, in a long-term, exclusive, monogmous relationship are - as far as I can see - already 'married' in Gods eyes. The fact that a Minister hasn't blessed the union or official vows haven't been exchanged is neither here nor there. Adam and Eve didn't have a wedding did they?

Welcome to the Baptist Board. :thumbsup: :wavey:

Ed