Marriage: Exclusive intellectual property of the church?

[righteousdude2]

Before you jump down my throat, I am merely asking (as was asked of me by a minister of a denomination that has succumbed to more liberal/government approved applications of this union of two individuals) for an open discussion as to the presumed rights of marriage belonging exclusively to the church, or even being a legitimate Biblical sacrament!

I realize that communion, baptism and in some denominational circles, foot-washing are sacraments, Holy in all ways. But, is the union of one man/one woman, or the institution of marriage a sacrament, and if so, where and what Scriptures did the church draw the sacrament of marriage from and base it upon?

I know that marriage is in fact a social institution/cultural more, but does the church hold a patent or copyright on the term or definition itself?

:wavey: And in order to allow this discussion to breathe and grow (not be shut down), PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BRINGING HUMAN SEXUALITY into this discussion. I want to hear other responses to this, well, ridiculous argument presented to me on line by another, who believes they are following the letter of the law, and not that of the Bible, because he doesn't see marriage as being exclusively Biblical! :wavey:

Thanks :jesus:

 

[Van]

Frequently in LA, you will see street signs, placed by some government authority or another, that say, for example, no parking, but the sign will not be readable because someone has taken a spray paint can and written some idea. So the concept of coming by latter and overwriting whatever was said before is basic and not holy.

Scripture tells us our local assemblies will be weakened from within, folks will introduce destructive heresies. We might believe marriage is between two Christians, evenly yoked, with both striving to follow the model given in scripture. But other, loudly professing they too are Christians, will form bonds not modeling scripture.

A much more important issue is taking back control of our schools from the godless left. But has can be seen in every national election, many professing Christians vote for Democrats, and their agenda, which is at War with Christianity.

 

[just-want-peace]

Frequently in LA, you will see street signs, placed by some government authority or another, that say, for example, no parking, but the sign will not be readable because someone has taken a spray paint can and written some idea. So the concept of coming by latter and overwriting whatever was said before is basic and not holy.

Scripture tells us our local assemblies will be weakened from within, folks will introduce destructive heresies. We might believe marriage is between two Christians, evenly yoked, with both striving to follow the model given in scripture. But other, loudly professing they too are Christians, will form bonds not modeling scripture.

A much more important issue is taking back control of our schools from the godless left. But has can be seen in every national election, many professing Christians vote for Democrats, and their agenda, which is at War with Christianity.

A great big hearty AMEN !!!! :thumbsup:

 

[righteousdude2]

Frequently in LA, you will see street signs, placed by some government authority or another, that say, for example, no parking, but the sign will not be readable because someone has taken a spray paint can and written some idea. So the concept of coming by latter and overwriting whatever was said before is basic and not holy.

Scripture tells us our local assemblies will be weakened from within, folks will introduce destructive heresies. We might believe marriage is between two Christians, evenly yoked, with both striving to follow the model given in scripture. But other, loudly professing they too are Christians, will form bonds not modeling scripture.

A much more important issue is taking back control of our schools from the godless left. But has can be seen in every national election, many professing Christians vote for Democrats, and their agenda, which is at War with Christianity.

Agreed! Thanks ... Didn't realize you were from Cali. Anywhere near the shaking Sunday?

 

[Van]

No, I did not feel it. I live in a relatively quiet area of California, seismically speaking, but have relatives who live in Long Beach, where in 1933 or so an earthquake knocked down lots of buildings.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Marriage has existed since the beginning of the human experience - long before the Patriarchs (except for Adam, of course), before the calling of Abram, and the incarnation of Jesus.

In the earliest days, there seemed to be no formal ceremony, except that a man and woman be recognized by the community as husband and wife and then begin sexual congress.

Over the ages, rituals and traditions developed to mark the importance of this foundational relationship which varied from culture to culture.

The church does not "own" marriage, but neither does the government - despite the precedents set by those who promoted "defense of marriage" laws which cemented the precedent that the U.S. government gets to mandate all forms of marriage for the U.S. To be fair, the Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v. United States (1878) did not allow religious exemption to the laws that outlawed polygamy, so the U.S. government was already overriding religious concerns of minority religious groups regarding marriage.

In my opinion, there is no legal or historic basis to make the claim that churches "own" marriage. Furthermore, I do not think there is a legitimate biblical basis for making marriage a "sacrament" (means of dispensing God's grace with an ecclesiastical body as the mediating authority).

Marriage is certainly a grace of God, but it is a common grace available to all persons. Basic biology tells us that men and women were created for each other to be able to produce children.

 

[preachinjesus]

We're Baptists, we don't believe in sacraments.

 

[righteousdude2]

Marriage has existed since the beginning of the human experience - long before the Patriarchs (except for Adam, of course), before the calling of Abram, and the incarnation of Jesus.

In the earliest days, there seemed to be no formal ceremony, except that a man and woman be recognized by the community as husband and wife and then begin sexual congress.

Over the ages, rituals and traditions developed to mark the importance of this foundational relationship which varied from culture to culture.

The church does not "own" marriage, but neither does the government - despite the precedents set by those who promoted "defense of marriage" laws which cemented the precedent that the U.S. government gets to mandate all forms of marriage for the U.S. To be fair, the Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v. United States (1878) did not allow religious exemption to the laws that outlawed polygamy, so the U.S. government was already overriding religious concerns of minority religious groups regarding marriage.

In my opinion, there is no legal or historic basis to make the claim that churches "own" marriage. Furthermore, I do not think there is a legitimate biblical basis for making marriage a "sacrament" (means of dispensing God's grace with an ecclesiastical body as the mediating authority).

Marriage is certainly a grace of God, but it is a common grace available to all persons. Basic biology tells us that men and women were created for each other to be able to produce children.

I honestly like your view. Thanks. :thumbsup:

 

[Zaac]

Exclusive intellectual property? :laugh: Who gets to decide that? And what church exclusively gets it?

People of all religions and denominations have been getting married for a while now. What governing body is going to dictate that marriage is the exclusive intellectual property of a specific church(religion)?

 

[Baptist Believer]

And what church exclusively gets it?

The Presbyterians, of course. They are predestined to have it. :tongue3:

 

[Zaac]

The Presbyterians, of course. They are predestined to have it. :tongue3:

Can the Baptists borrow it on Saturdays?

 

[Yeshua1]

Exclusive intellectual property? :laugh: Who gets to decide that? And what church exclusively gets it?

People of all religions and denominations have been getting married for a while now. What governing body is going to dictate that marriage is the exclusive intellectual property of a specific church(religion)?

God gave that relationship to all people, regardless if saved or lost, but its to always be between a man and a woman, and it highest ideal will be between a saved man and saved woman!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Unless, you hold that matrimony is a sacrament, then marriage is not exclusive intellectual property of the church. In fact folks have been and are getting married all over the world without any church being involved.

But getting to the issue at hand, in the 17th century Germanies, Lutheran marriges were conducted, on the church porch. Many countries do not recognize a church ceremony as valid. In the former Soviet Union, Evangelical Christian-Baptist couples would go to the local marriage office get married and then have a blessing service at their local church. IIRC, the same type of thing happens in France.

 

[righteousdude2]

Can the Baptists borrow it on Saturdays?

Get serious. And stop trying to derail this thread!

 

[InTheLight]

And stop trying to derail this thread!

Didn't realize you were from Cali. Anywhere near the shaking Sunday?

 

[Zaac]

Get serious. And stop trying to derail this thread!

Stop smelling yourself. The only thing that will derail the thread is your just displayed foolishness.

 

[righteousdude2]

Stop smelling yourself. The only thing that will derail the thread is your just displayed foolishness.

:flower: Atlanta must have some spacious parks. Why not visit one, take in the creative wonders of God's handiwork in the trees and flowers; then take a deep breath, and try to relax. You deserve some time with nature to unwind, son! :flower: Shalom!!!

 

[Jerome]

Actual 'other churches' exclusive property' situation that put Baptists in an ethical dilemma. What would you have done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1836

Since the Marriage Act 1753, the only legally recognised marriages in England and Wales were those performed by the Church of England, Jews and Quakers. This meant that Roman Catholics and members of other Christian congregations, as well as atheists, Muslims, Hindus or members of any other religious body, had to be married according to (the Anglican) rites and ceremonies which they did not support, and by a priest who they believed had no authority

.

 

[Darrell C]

Actual 'other churches' exclusive property' situation that put Baptists in an ethical dilemma. What would you have done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1836

.

Interesting. I would have sought to have my own Pastor marry us, perhaps. But isn't that a little different, seeing in view is still men and women getting married? There is no contention about other faiths getting married or marrying. We might see an equivalent today in that there are those authorized to marry, and having someone without that authority marry you will not see the marriage legally acknowledged. For example, someone decides to get married and gets their Dentist to do it, lol.

See what I mean?


God bless.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am an advocate of civil partnerships for all couples where the state recognized two persons willingly entering a relationship with shared rights and privileges.

Marriage would then be reserved for churches and other religious institutions to regulate according to the teachings of the faith.

In practice, a Christian man and woman would be united in a legal arrangement by the state and a spiritual arrangement by their church.

This unties the knot of church and state conflicts.

It is not perfect - and it can't be used by churches as a means to control the actions of persons outside of Christendom - but I think it is the best solution to our current situation.