Married in our hearts ( A question)

Gregory

No, I can't. Not everything we practice and do in our everyday life is found in scripture. No more than using hymn books and using church buses. But TRADITIONALLY, marriage has always been performed by a minister or priest of the Christian church since the church was founded. We can find in scripture where both the Old Testament saints and New Testament saints had WIVES. When one examines history one can find out how people obtained a wife or a husband. It was either by a rabbi, minister or a priest. Both church history and the bible go hand in hand in this matter of marriage of a man and woman. I hope I helped you some.

 

Since this has hit three pages I guess I'll give my point of view.

I think you can only be married without some type of civic acknowledgement if:

1. Due to nuclear holocaust, plague, shipwreck, or going hiking in the wilderness without a map, you have been placed in a situation in which you're unlikely to come upon a functioning society in the foreseeable future.

2. You live in some Brave New World in which marriage has been abolished and possibly criminalized.

 

DeeJay said:

So even though married unbelievers are united by the state they are un-married in the eyes of God. So in the eyes of God they are fornicating.

That is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen, even for the Internet.

If a secular marriage between (former) unbelievers does not technically exist in God's eyes, then logically, either one of that couple would be free to marry any other eligible person in the church.

Run that by your pastor. See what happens.

 

So, I guess the Baptist churches are now ready to accept homosexual marriages, polygymous marriages, etc., if they are embraced by the secular world.

 

Non sequitur.

 

Hope of Glory said:

So, I guess the Baptist churches are now ready to accept homosexual marriages, polygymous marriages, etc., if they are embraced by the secular world.

Not again! Why can't people deal with reality instead of inventing extreme false dichotomies?

The original post didn't ask about polygamy or homosexual "marriage." It asked about what constituted a normal, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Deal with what was posted instead of what you imagined was posted.

 

Or, deal with an errant statement that someone made. If civil unions are recognized in God's eyes, then they are recognized in God's eyes. If one isn't, then none are. You can't pick and choose.

 

Still makes no sense. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is not considered wrong by God. Homosexual marriage is. God is quite able to consider unsaved people's joining in matrimony as binding while considering gay marriage invalid.

 

I still think that essentially the girl mentioned in the OP is just trying to get her boyfriend to make a lasting committment to her until they can actually go through with a marriage.

I think its just being blown up into a huge discussion.....in my opinion.

 

It seems to me that it's someone who is unwilling to make a binding commitment, but wants someone else to do so.

 

Hope of Glory said:

If civil unions are recognized in God's eyes, then they are recognized in God's eyes. If one isn't, then none are

False dichotomy. Not all civil unions are equal. Your glib answer is really an erroneous oversimplification.

God condemns many pagan practices, and he condemns them for their illicit sexual perversions. But never are the pagans condemned for being husband and wife. Therefore, neither should we condemn them.

 

It's not really a glib answer. I hold that a civil union simply doesn't exist in the eyes of God, unless and until a person becomes a believer. It's not a "marriage", it's a civil union.

If a civil union is binding in the eyes of God, then all civil unions would have to be equal.

In other words, what someone did 20 years before becoming a believer is moot once that person becomes a believer.

 

Civil unions are private contracts between people. Marriage is a public contract (yes, I know it's more than a contract, just hear me out). Even if they provide the same civil benefits, to compare a private civil union with a public marriage is truly apples and oranges.

 

Hope of Glory said:

If a civil union is binding in the eyes of God, then all civil unions would have to be equal.

Your reasoning is fallacious. This is like saying that since the civil law against murder is just, then all laws (including those legalizing slavery or abortion) must also be just.

The reality is that some marriages (such as those between a man and a woman) are lawful in the eyes of God, and some (such as between two men or two women or one man and many women) are not.

In other words, what someone did 20 years before becoming a believer is moot once that person becomes a believer.

You assert this, but you present no reason why I should agree with you. The fact remains that a changed standing with the Almighty does not change your status before the magistrate, nor does it exempt you from your lawfully made vows.

 

By the way, no one has yet pointed out that in 1 Cor. 7:10-13, Paul says that it is God's will that believers with an unbelieving spouse are not to seek separation:

Why not? Because in the eyes of God, that marriage is real, and for a believer to end it would be sin.

 

Then is it a marriage if it's not Christian in nature?

Why or why not?