extramarital cohabitation

[1Peter4:11]

Post-It, I think you miss the point of that verse altogether.

i think we'd have to agree that Paul was saying obey the Roman elders, wouldn't we? Even Jesus adhered to this, when He said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

but by the same token, the verse says "the authorities," not the laws. Paul also tells us that all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient (1 Cor 10:23)

seems to me that even though something is lawful, that doesn't necessarily make it right. yes, we should obey those God has placed in charge of us; but not to the exclusion of what is right and God-honoring.

just my two cents.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Sularis:
[QB]well actually God's law supersedes state law - ONLY when state law goes against God's law.

Hello? Romans 13 says State Law is God's law. There is no difference. If God establishes it then it is God who is allowing the law to be made, not really man.

Moses gave the laws to the people but it was God that established that law. There is no difference here.

 

[Son of Consolation]

Amen to that Peter, you just took the words right out of my mouth.

I believe this thread has ran its course, and inadvertently strayed off the topic. If it continues in its downward spiraling, I'll suggest to the forum Moderator(s) to shut it down.

P.S. Post-it, forgive me for saying, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your exegesis of the Bible verses quoted above. The point here is that God can raise up rulers, kings, and Presidents over a nation for their encouragements, uplifting, blessings (if you will) or for a curse and punishment. Example: King David v.s. the Pharaoh of Egypt, before the exodus. Obedience to the governing authorities does not superseed obedience to the higher authorities. Case example: When the Disciples were threatened by the ruling elite, they replied: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). For believers the laws of the land is to be obeyed so far as it does not come in contradiction with God's moral laws - which has been written in His living Words, the Bible.

[ June 03, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

[Kiffin]

It is also true that when God's Law collides with Man's Law that God's Law cancel's out man's law. I am suprised how many Baptists on this forum see nothing wrong with fornication. Personaly I would not perform a wedding of 2 people in my church if they were "shacking up" as Ernie correctly calls it. They would have to come before the Church and confess their sin in order for me to even consider it. A return back to Biblical Church Discipline would protect the Church from becoming a den or harlotry.

Using Post it's logic we can say that China is justified in imprisoning Christians, having forced abortions because that is the Law. As some other's correctly pointed out ...when Man's law conflict's with God's , God's Law cancels it else we could justify, the Jewish Holocaust, Jim Crow Laws, Sudanese slavery of Christians, as all good things that God says were right and whom we dare not challennge.

 

[Gina B]

Haven't read every single post, not enough time, but my opinion on whether you should live together without being married...
No, not in a sense. To explain: if two people want to be together I don't think they need anybody to give them a piece of paper in order for them to do so, and I don't know where it says in the Bible you have to. And state laws do NOT say you have to be married to have a sexual relationship, but the bible usually indicates having had a sexual relationship with the person as binding.
Gina

 

[Johnv]

...Romans 13 says State Law is God's law. There is no difference...[/QB]

Uhh, I just read Romans 13, in English and in Greek, three times. I don't see where you're seeing this. What I read in the entire chapter (which is only 14 verses long) is that the laws of God are laws of love.

It apprears you're reading Verses 1 & 2 out of context. A more literal translation of the word for "authorities" would be "the higher power(s)", which more vague than the state or federal governments. I doubt from the context of the entire chapter, that he's referring to the Roman government. It appears he may be referring to the governing body of the church, but that's just how I'm discerning it.

In any event, if your assertion is correct, and it's a sin to go against the government, then the founding fathers sinned for going against England. To say nothing about John Brown, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.

[ June 03, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[donnA]

I did do some research online on common law marriages, and found these statements made here not true.

Common law marriage laws exist, in varying forms, in all 50 states. Do a search on the web for additional information.

Still a minor detail in many States, when the two put their names on a lease (for example) the state drops the "minimum years together" rule and considers them married at that point. It has been upheld in court as a legal marriage.

What I did find is in my next post.

 

[donnA]

Although a license and ceremony generally are required, some states still recognize what is known as a "common-law" marriage. In this type of "marriage," which was more common in f rontier times, a man and woman who have lived together for a certain period of time and who hold themselves to be husband and wife are considered to be married even without a license and a formal ceremony. Because a common-law marriage is not formally recorded, the couple, if challenged, may have to prove the existence of their marriage contract. They may have to prove that they live together as man and wife and present themselves to the public as a married couple. Where recognized, a common-law marriage is as valid as a typical marriage.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia currently recognize common-law marriages. Each of these jurisdictions has unique requirements for common-law marriage.

Alabama
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.
Colorado
A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.
District of Columbia
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to be married and (2) cohabitation.
Iowa
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.
Kansas
For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
Montana
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.
Oklahoma
To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.
Pennsylvania
A common-law marriage may be established if a man and woman exchange words that indicate that they intend to be married at the present time.
Rhode Island
The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.
South Carolina
A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.
Texas
A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.
Utah
For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.
http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/family/common.html

Most people are fuzzy on exactly what common law marriage is. Like so many others, we used to believe that if two people lived together for seven years (or some other magical number of years), clicked their heels three times, and sprinkled some fairy dust, they'd become common law spouses
In most states in the United States** today, there's no such thing as common law marriage. No matter how many years you live together and how much fairy dust you sprinkle, you will never have a common law marriage. That's good news if you're worried about "accidentally" finding yourself married, but bad news if you wanted the perks of marriage without the paperwork.
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage.html

Contrary to popular belief, even if two people live together for a certain number of years, if they don't intend to be married and present themselves to others as a married couple, there is no common law marriage. More particularly, a common law marriage can occur only when:

a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
intending to be married.
Unless all four are true, there is no common law marriage. When a common law marriage exists, the couple must go through a formal divorce to end the relationship.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/faqs/detail.cfm/objectid/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C#7CC69001-E4F5-49D2-B9820D4D431AF399

So no, all states do not have common law marriage. And as you can see there are some requirements to claiming a common law marriage. And when you are done with your unbibnlical sex, you actually have to seek a divorce, because the state sees you ae married. So if you shack up again, or actually do marry someone you are commiting adultry.

I found that common law marriage began in this country becasue of the frontier dasy, when there frequently was no way of marrying, no preacher, justice of the peace, or even judge, becasue of the remoteness of living on the frontier, where your nearest neightbor might be many mile if not hundreds of miles.
The conditions of the original reasoning of common law marriage no longer exsist.
And just becasue it remains on some law books in some states does not make it right.

You say that becasue the state says it's ok, then it's ok. So does everything the state says is alright actually alright then?
What about the laws that keep christians from bowing their heads in silent prayer in court houses? What about abortion? The state allows a lot of things that are not biblical, because the state does not belief in the biblical God.

 

[Johnv]

I just wanted to add:

Most states no longer recognize common law marriages. However, if a couple meets the requirements for a common law marriage in a state that does recognize common law marriages, and the couple then moves to a state that does not have common law marriages, the new state will usually recognize the "common law" marriage. For example, if a couple lived in Texas, a state recognizing common law marriage, and met the requirements for a common law marriage, and then moved to California, which does not recognize common law marriage, California will recognize the couple as being married.

 

[donnA]

I want some bible verses that say sex outside of marriage is alright. That going from one person to another having sex as long as you live in the same house is God's will.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Johnv:

It apprears you're reading Verses 1 & 2 out of context. A more literal translation of the word for "authorities" would be "the higher power(s)", which more vague than the state or federal governments. I doubt from the context of the entire chapter, that he's referring to the Roman government. It appears he may be referring to the governing body of the church, but that's just how I'm discerning it.

I wasn't aware that the Jewish Church taxed its people. I you can support then the middle verses of Rom13 about paying taxes are going to give your argument a real problem. You will also have to explain at what point did the Jewish leaders implement using the sword to punish those who refused to follow its laws. I know you say you read it 3 times but you have missed some vital verses.[/quote]

In any event, if your assertion is correct, and it's a sin to go against the government, then the founding fathers sinned for going against England. To say nothing about John Brown, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.

That is correct, it is a sin to violate the laws of the government. Which supports all my other arguments that there are acceptable reasons to sin under various conditions.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

What is to be done with these disobedient apostles? According to Postit they are disobedient to the authorities, temple authorities at that, God's leaders? therefore God is not pleased with them????????? In fact even the angels defied the local authorities....shame, shame. What would postit do with these gangsters?

Acts 5:17-42 (KJV)
17Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Acts 5:18 18And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.
Acts 5:19 19But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,
Acts 5:20 20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
Acts 5:21 21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Acts 5:22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,
Acts 5:23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.
Acts 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Acts 5:25Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

Acts 5:26Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Acts 5:27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Acts 5:28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

Acts 5:29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 5:32And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 5:33When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
Acts 5:34Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Acts 5:35And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Acts 5:36For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Acts 5:37After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Acts 5:38And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Acts 5:39But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Acts 5:40And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5:41And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
Acts 5:42And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.


[ June 03, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

[post-it]

Peter clearly broke out of jail. Ok? he sinned! Just because he was a Christian was no reason to justify his crime. If this is a justified act, then the church should be busting out every Christian imprisoned when they are arrested for protesting an abortion clinic.

Peter further endangered his own life and others by continuing to violate the laws.

This is a perfect example why Paul, in Romans 13, said not to endanger your life in connection with the Authorities. He said to obey there commands.

The angel in the story in Acts was just an unknown follower and thought he was doing the right thing. The writer described this follower as an "angel".

Peter was a human, he is not God, not Jesus, not perfect. NO APOSTLE was perfect and they all sinned. They all did really stupid things sometimes, just as all humans do. Peter sinned by escaping and tried to justify it. He was wrong. But it takes nothing away from the rest of the great things he did for Christianity. We all have only to recall when Billy Graham did something really stupid but that takes nothing away from the great things he has done for Christianity in our generation.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

post-it -

You really need to read the account of Peter's escape from prison more closely before rebutting it. It's found in Acts 12 and it clearly states that Peter was unaware of what was happening to him. Also, the very fact that it was an angel of God who liberated him indicates that this jail break was NOT a sin. How could it possibly be sin when it is mandated by God? Besides that, if it is a matter of "putting oneself in danger" that makes us obedient to the laws of man, then Peter was VERY justified in his escape. Look at what the Sanhedrin did to poor Stephen!

The problem with your philosophy is that you are putting the state ABOVE God in the business of law making. You rely on Romans 13 heavily in many of your defenses but the laws of man do not supercede the laws of God. Please see Ephesians 6:10-18.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Acts 4:19 also applies well to this discussion.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
post-it -

You really need to read the account of Peter's escape from prison more closely before rebutting it. It's found in Acts 12 and it clearly states that Peter was unaware of what was happening to him.

At what point would you agree that Peter knew he was committing a jail break? He doubted all the way through the actual "run" that the man who helped him was an Angel.

Proof 11Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches

At this point, he had just made it through the last gate and down one street. Which means he was doubting that this man was an angel during the escape. If he were doubting that he was an angel, it must have meant he knew what was going on in that it was a prison break. He was told to get his cloths on and knew what that meant.

By this next verse Peter is hiding from the law and afraid of being caught because he tells his friends to "keep it down". If it were God that allowed Peter to escape, then why would Peter fear that he would be caught and placed back in jail. If God wanted him out, nothing could keep him in. Unless of course Peter felt this was a run of the mill jail break. Which it was and clearly seen from the evidence.

17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place.

Also, the very fact that it was an angel of God who liberated him indicates that this jail break was NOT a sin.

We don't know nor did Peter know this was an angel, he only assumed it was an angel. He had clear doubts all the way through.

How could it possibly be sin when it is mandated by God?

If God did not want Peter in jail, Peter would have never been placed there to begin with. Most likely Peter went against God's desire for his life at this time. Criminal acts are not God's way.

Besides that, if it is a matter of "putting oneself in danger" that makes us obedient to the laws of man, then Peter was VERY justified in his escape.

The two innocent guards where executed for Peters crime. Peter has innocent blood on his hands because of his crime. He too could have been killed but since that didn't happen we will save that argument for a later time. It is sufficient that Paul realized, that it was wrong to disobey the Authorities and gave us mandates that say we shouldn't.

The problem with your philosophy is that you are putting the state ABOVE God in the business of law making. You rely on Romans 13 heavily in many of your defenses but the laws of man do not supercede the laws of God. Please see Ephesians 6:10-18.

Ephesians say the "struggle" is against the authorities, not that we should violate the laws of the authorities.

Here is another fine line I draw but is equally important to understand in this view. I accept that it is acceptable to violate certain laws which would be a sin to do. For instance, the smuggling of Bibles by citizens of some countries would be a violation of this mandate. It is a sin, yet this is an acceptable type sin to commit. When others start to suffer by violation of the law, it must be considered very carefully. Circumstances dictate much of these exceptions. The actions of Peter may have been the proper thing to do. He certainly had a choice after the fact to turn himself back in when he realized it was a jail break. He didn't do that either.

[ June 04, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[donnA]

No answer so far on the fact that not all states allow common law marriage, and that you can just live together and call it common law marriage. That you have to meet certain criteria.?????????????

 

[crazycat]

Confession time here,
I lived with my husband for two and a half years before we were married.
was it wrong YES!
was I saved and knew it YES!
did I care NO!
was I backslidden YES!
I was told when I left Bible college that God was going to strike me dead. I felt well maybe I should just do my thing and I did. Was I wrong yes. Did it anyway. BTW I met my huband 6 months after I left school. He was not the cause of me leaving. Actually I left because my pastor from my home church hand atouchy problem and the school just hired him.

Do I think it weaken my marriage by living with my husbad. NO
I never once ever thought he would cheat on me, and he has said the same about me. We have been married 8 years now. After marriage we lived apart for about a year (do to his job). We saw each other on the weekends and i still never was worried about him being unfaithful.

I think the too worst parts about living with my husband before marriage was 1. It weakened my testimony, I didn't care then but I do now.
2. It definitely weakened my relationship with GOD, That can never be replaced.

 

[ChristianCynic]

'Post-it,' you have some of the most snotbrained ideas to be seen on these boards. You have clearly made Jesus out to be a sinner, since he did not obey the authorities. He did not blaspheme, of course, but in their judgment he did-- and they were the 'authorities' that cannot be resisted.

YOou have made Paul out to be an ace violator of the commands he himself wrote. He was imprisoned and beaten many times because he refused to obey the 'authorities.' In your view he sinned (like Jesus?), but his sin was justifiable.

And you must think Peter and John were really loony when they said they must "obey God rather than man." This is not possible, according to you, as you claim the laws of man must be the laws of God. God is a wimp to you-- for he subjects himself to every notion of man's authority.

How about a few questions concerning your views of authority....
If you lived in 1775 in the American colonies, would you have resisted British authority or American authority?

And in this same conflict, which way would God choose to sin against himself by letting one or the other prevail?

Since God raised up rulers-- Samson, for example-- for the purpose of resisting authority-- the conquering Philistines, for example-- is God the originator of sin?

Finally-- and actually touching the topic of this thread-- was the man in I Corinthians 5 who "had" his father's wife married to her by that fact?-- in which case, Paul was dead wrong to have instructed them to excommunicate him?... in which case, he and his father's wife were not sinning, but Paul was, as were the Corinthians, supposing they carried out the command. OR, does a church constitute an 'authority' that cannot be resisted, so no matter what action they take, it is God's action [Catholic view]?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
You have clearly made Jesus out to be a sinner, since he did not obey the authorities.

Since sin is judged from the heart, Jesus did not sin. Jesus knew what the perfect will of God was. So you can't bring Jesus into this argument by claiming his actions are equal to our actions.

You have made Paul out to be an ace violator of the commands he himself wrote. He was imprisoned and beaten many times because he refused to obey the 'authorities.' In your view he sinned (like Jesus?), but his sin was justifiable.

That is correct, and Paul admitted that he would continue to commit sin. This is a perfect example.

And you must think Peter and John were really loony when they said they must "obey God rather than man." This is not possible, according to you, as you claim the laws of man must be the laws of God. God is a wimp to you-- for he subjects himself to every notion of man's authority.

You are using this verse out of context. Used your way, it gives the abortion clinic bomber Godly permission to destroy these clinics. God is not a wimp, he established the Authorities, man gets to decide the final outcome of that nation. It's laws are God's law. When good people change bad laws it is God's law. When bad people change good laws to bad laws it is still God's law. The people (nation) are now punished. This view allows that people will violate (sin) against the Authorities to a minor degree (like illegal protesting, smuggling Bibles, etc) Christians in China must sin to do what is in their hearts, but this sin is not held against them.

How about a few questions concerning your views of authority....
If you lived in 1775 in the American colonies, would you have resisted British authority or American authority?

Assuming I knew in my heart that supporting the colonies was the right thing to do, I would have sinned and violated the very command of Paul. Just as he did himself. They refused to pay taxes see romans 13 for the tax reference). The bible says to pay those taxes no matter what. But we can violate that mandate and not pay them. There are two types of sin, those sins that we are not held accountable for since our hearts say it it th right thing to do. Then their are sins we get listed out to us found in scripture. Those we may violate on a need to violate basis. There will be great physical risk when the latter is committed, but no spiritual risk.

And in this same conflict, which way would God choose to sin against himself by letting one or the other prevail?

The freewill choice is made by man and his desire. God sets the game, and we play it out. Many times God used a bad nation to teach Israel a harsh lesson. It was important that the people of the bad nation obeyed the orders of their evil Authorities to carry out the killings that God wanted carried out against Israel.

Finally-- and actually touching the topic of this thread-- was the man in I Corinthians 5 who "had" his father's wife married to her by that fact?-- in which case, Paul was dead wrong to have instructed them to excommunicate him?... in which case, he and his father's wife were not sinning, but Paul was, as were the Corinthians, supposing they carried out the command.

No sin in this case since the question was who was allowed to belong to a church, which had nothing to do with him instructing the man to disobey the civil law that allowed the marriage.

does a church constitute an 'authority' that cannot be resisted, so no matter what action they take, it is God's action [Catholic view]?

No, Romans 13 doesn't address the authority of the Church but rather only the civil authorities

[ June 04, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]