Elopement--Is it a sin?

[Jordan Kurecki]

Then defend it by answering the obvious question on which your whole argument rests: Does honor = acquiescence?

Eph_6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Col_3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

 

[MB]

.

madre is the oldest of six kids. The younger five did not want to follow the error of the eldest so they had the fancy weddings, blow out receptions and storybook honeymoons. They are all divorced.

I am the youngest of four following the others into the world of the wedded. I am the only one married to the original.

I really don't think it matters where or how we get married. I was married in my parents home. By my parents Pastor. That was in 1963 and I'm still married to the same woman.

What really matters is that both partners respect the commitment made before God. We became one flesh on that day. To divorce her would be like cutting myself in half. There is no way I could do that.
MB

 

[Ebenezer]

To The Eloper:

This preacher was asked one time, "Is having an affair sin?" Nope. The Bible says nothing about having an affair. But if you are talking about wicked adultery, now that IS A SIN!
Well, in like manner, the Bible says nothing about elopments or eloping. Elope...envelope...antelope...cantelope...scope a dope! Elopement is not a sin. But most everything that motivates a couple to do so, probably is a sin! Like dishonoring your father and mother, skirting responsibility, honour and duty, virtue in a young daughter that places her under her father's authority until he gives her to one better than himself, the duty to ask the man and woman that brought that young lady into this world, who just might be approachable and understanding if the bridegroom had the courage and decency to follow the Bible in "intreating" them as father and mother (see 1 Timothy 5:1, 2). No young man, "eloping" is not a sin. But the absolute lack of character, dishonesty, secrecy and distrust that motivates any young man or woman to go to such measures is all surrounded and born by more sin than just "self will".

A similar thread on parental approval or disapproval of potential marriage partners for their offspring led me to bring up the question of whether or not elopement of a Christian couple of legal age is something that God would endorse.

Is such a thing as elopement a violation of Ex. 20:12 ("Honor thy father and thy mother..."), which is also re-affirmed in Eph. 6:1-3?

 

[Aaron]

So in other words, you don't want to engage in a discussion that might tend to disprove your viewpoint?

Just answer the questions, and we'll go from there.

Then defend it by answering the obvious question on which your whole argument rests: Does honor = acquiescence?

Let's take a step back and look at the argument as a whole. From the moment the point of honoring one's parents was made, your knees jerked until the sheer weight of the fact that it is a non-optional, universal commandment dragged you kicking and clawing to the inescapable conclusion that the honor of one's parents might be something God has said you might consider when taking a mate.

Think I'm going to haggle with you over the details in your attempts to push it to the margin? No thanks.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Let's take a step back and look at the argument as a whole. From the moment the point of honoring one's parents was made, your knees jerked until the sheer weight of the fact that it is a non-optional, universal commandment dragged you kicking and clawing to the inescapable conclusion that the honor of one's parents might be something God has said you might consider when taking a mate.

Think I'm going to haggle with you over the details in your attempts to push it to the margin? No thanks.

In other words, "No, acquiescence isn't needed for honor, and therefore my entire argument is invalid. Yet I refuse to admit it, and will instead pose a strawman about how you are trying to not honor them."

 

[Aaron]

Discussing the issue with folks who are interested only in nullifying that one aspect is tedious and fruitless. Must one always obey the king? Of course, except in extreme circumstances. Must one always obey his parents? Of course, except in extreme circumstances, and until he marries. Note, I didn't say until he wants to marry someone, until he (or she) is willingly given in marriage.

Now you will want to define "extreme circumstances," to the extent that a parent is disqualified by his halitosis.

Not interested in discussing it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Let's take a step back and look at the argument as a whole. From the moment the point of honoring one's parents was made, your knees jerked until the sheer weight of the fact that it is a non-optional, universal commandment dragged you kicking and clawing to the inescapable conclusion that the honor of one's parents might be something God has said you might consider when taking a mate.

Consider, yes. Acquiesce to their demands, reasonable or not? No. That is not a biblical commandment. That is where you err, and that is why the discussion is ridiculous.

I'll give you an example, and you tell me if I was ultimately wrong. In November of my freshman year of college, I drew #44 in the draft lottery. Nixon ended 2-S deferments a week later, allowing us to remain enrolled in the spring semester if we had already done so, but warning that, if our number came up after the semester ended, or had already come up, we would be drafted. On May 1, twelve days before the semester ended, they were already drafting #56.

My dad, a WWII veteran, didn't want his son going to war. He'd spent three and a half years on the front lines of Europe, with only 55 days of R&R. I, on the other hand, knew enlisting would give me a better chance of avoiding Vietnam than allowing myself to be drafted. Refusing to report was not an option for me, and in that he agreed. He advised, however, against enlisting, thinking perhaps I would not be drafted. That was wishful thinking on his part. I was a college athlete, very able-bodied, and I knew if drafted, I'd pass the physical and be assigned to infantry. So I enlisted, and having my private pilot's license, I selected for rotary wing. I asked the recruiter about selecting for Europe, and he put it in my enlistment contract, but honestly stated they needed rotary wing pilots -- helicopters -- in Vietnam and there was a 50-50 chance the Army would ignore my Europe assignment and send me to Southeast Asia. He turned out to be right. I arrived in-country 21 Oct 71 and was there until well into 1973 on extended stand-down duty.

I lost two birds, and several friends. I was wounded twice. But I lived. Would have I survived an infantry tour? Life expectancies for a Huey pilot averaged seven days. Infantry casualties? Hard to say for sure, but there were some one million men in combat, and 58,174 died. I might have done better in the infantry. But I knew flying. I knew combat flying after my training at Rucker. I know I survived because I was confident in my ability as a pilot. I am not confident I would have survived an infantry tour.

What do you think? Did I dishonor my dad? After you answer, I'll tell you what he said.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Discussing the issue with folks who are interested only in nullifying that one aspect is tedious and fruitless.

That one aspect? That's your ENTIRE argument right there. It's not "one aspect", it is what your entire line of thinking hinges on. Tedious? Fruitless? I think what you really mean is "revealing", and "enlightening". A discussion is only tedious for the person who has to try to not discuss certain things for fear of being shown he is wrong. It's not tedious for me at all, I assure you.

Must one always obey the king? Of course, except in extreme circumstances. Must one always obey his parents? Of course, except in extreme circumstances, and until he marries. Note, I didn't say until he wants to marry someone, until he (or she) is willingly given in marriage.

Now you will want to define "extreme circumstances," to the extent that a parent is disqualified by his halitosis.

Not interested in discussing it.

See, you're already making concessions. You're now allowing for extreme circumstances. But, you're wrong. It's not only in extreme cases in which we don't have to obey our parents.

According to the Bible, there is a time when we become accountable for our own actions, and can no longer hide under our parent's "umbrella" for protection. When Israel was scared to go in to the promised land, they had to wander until all those that were over 20 had died off, while those who were under 20 eventually got to go in.

See, as a child, obedience is commanded. Because you aren't responsible for much, only how you respond to what you are told to do. Once you are older, you become responsible for your own actions, and if you make the wrong choices, you have to bear the brunt of the consequences yourself.

Parents, just like their children, are often swayed by emotion. Probably not as easily as their children, I'll grant. But still can be. Just because one parent does not give their blessing does not mean that they are making a rational judgment. It could be anything from just not liking the way he/she dresses, up to not wanting their only child to marry a missionary and leave them. Point is, parents are fallible, too. And when it comes to who to marry, the person who has to live with the consequence of the choice is not the parent, making the person getting married ultimately responsible, and therefore not Biblically obligated to acquiesce to their parent's wishes.

Again, I reiterate that only a fool would totally dismiss their parents' opinions and reasoning. But only a bigger fool would not follow God's will for their life simply because a parent doesn't agree.

 

[Aaron]

See, you're already making concessions. You're now allowing for extreme circumstances. But, you're wrong. It's not only in extreme cases in which we don't have to obey our parents.

It's a big surprise you would say that. I'm going to fall over from a heart attack and die from that big surprise.

What you need to do though, is go back and reread my statements. There is no "oh now I'm saying this," or "now i'm making concessions." You will find that your conclusions about what I said are arbitrary assumptions. You're too focused on hallowing your disobedience, and the disobedience you fomented in your wife that you will not allow a discussion of true and devout honor of parents in the door.

The tedium in dealing with you will be the constant drip of misconstruals and revisionism. Just not interested. Thanks, just the same.

 

[Sapper Woody]

It's a big surprise you would say that. I'm going to fall over from a heart attack and die from that big surprise.

What you need to do though, is go back and reread my statements. There is no "oh now I'm saying this," or "now i'm making concessions." You will find that your conclusions about what I said are arbitrary assumptions. You're too focused on hallowing your disobedience, and the disobedience you fomented in your wife that you will not allow a discussion of true and devout honor of parents in the door.

The tedium in dealing with you will be the constant drip of misconstruals and revisionism. Just not interested. Thanks, just the same.

And yet again a total disregard for the discussion at hand, instead choosing to resort to sarcasm and focusing on telling me that I am doing something wrong. Why don't you read what I wrote, and then attempt to prove me wrong, and in doing so advance the discussion? Again, it's not tedious for me at all. It's only tedious when you know the talking points are going to disprove your stated opinion.

 

[Alcott]

Anyway, I've said my peace.

It sure would be interesting to hear your war.