-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Must a Marriage be legally licensed to be accepted by God?
- Thread starter jprieto
- Start date
But Paul was never married! :smilewinkgrin:
And on top of that.. Peter nor Paul was never against or at odds the other (as this guy seems to think) but in unity and love together they expanded the Kingdom of God.
I seem to remember Paul sending Mark away because he was 'unprofitable' for his ministry. I also don't recollect Paul allowing anyone and everyone who claimed the name of Christ to do as they wanted if it went against God or authorities (government). Just saying- Paul was not one who allowed most anything so people could feel comfortable. He declared a standard of living and holiness before God and men, and held all to it, in love.
I agree. And I'm a little miffed at the way this thread was done, with "Hey, it's me" all of a sudden. And I'm also miffed at the insinuation that if you disagree with jprieto you are not like Paul. I think many if not most of us on the BB, not just missionaries and pastors, are trying hard to be like Jesus, win souls and not be legalists.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's my point.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The answer is pretty clear to me - divorce the state from marriage (do you like that wordplay?).
Let people sign a legal social contract which allows them to share all things in kind and give legal protection with the state.
Let the church/synagogue/mosque or whatever perform the actual marriage. Stop letting ministers of religion be agents of the state.
That is how the non-recognised churches do it here.
If a couple chooses to forego the legal contract, that is up to them.
Let people sign a legal social contract which allows them to share all things in kind and give legal protection with the state.
Let the church/synagogue/mosque or whatever perform the actual marriage. Stop letting ministers of religion be agents of the state.
That is how the non-recognised churches do it here.
If a couple chooses to forego the legal contract, that is up to them.
SovereignMercy
Member
But not a reason for remarriage.
My definition of "shacking up" is the same as Paul's when he speaks of "chambering." When I say common law, and you say common law we are talking about different things. The common law of which you are thinking is the thing of conventional wisdom and old wives' fables. The common law of which I think is a real legal concept, and is, in fact the foundation of law in England and the U.S.
Common law IS law.
Until you educate yourself in the matter of common law, it is futile for us to discuss how it applies to marriage, an institution in which all civil law has its roots, and by which it derives its authority.
And, now we know the rest of the story.
1 Thessalonians 5: KJB
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Matthew 7:19 KJB
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
New York does not recognize 'common law' marriages. Section 11 of the Domestic Relation Law states, "No marriage shall be valid unless solemnized by either....." and then goes on to list a myriad of folks authorized to solemnize the stated civil contract.
jprieto said:
And have taken credit for the work of the Holy Spirit while flaunting your arrogance.
I think the big point we can take from Jesus' interactions with the pharisees is this: True Marriage IS independent of government, or any man-made recognition. Jesus was saying, in effect "You guys have your definition of what a marraige is, and when it can end...but God's definition is different, and higher.
I would say that for the sake of this argument, a REAL marriage that is a life-covenant between to believers in the presence of a Gospel minister and witnesses who will hold them accountable, does NOT need government papers to make it legitimate before God.
With the direction that the definition of marriage is going in this country, I think it is not unlikely that many more Christians may have a desire, and even a need to separate their true Christian marriages from the secular defintion...which may include foregoing Government registration...especially if lots of harmful restrictions are attached to a "legal" marriage. Or if governments start requiring ministers who perform weddings to marry Homosexual couples...might they not stop cooperating with the legals system altogether? ...and just perform religious ceremonies...with no papers? Possible, but maybe a long way off.
THAT SAID...I think there are very few good reasons at the moment for a Christian couple to forego making it "legal"...and there are good reasons to do so, so that your spouse and children will be allowed to have your stuff when you croak.
BUT...My wife & I found out that the minister didn't get around to signing our marraige license and turning it in untill a day or two after our wedding...so the first night of our honeymoon...WE WEREN'T LEGALLY MARRIED!!! :laugh:
However, I believe were married before God...papers or not...because we made a covenant with each other before God to wed...and THAT is what real marriage is.
Let's be clear that the state does have a vested interest and a clear role in protecting marriage. There is no real law or order without it. Do parents have authority over their children? Should they? Sez who? And under what conditions?
Except for some hippies still reeling from the 60's and those influenced by them, the objection isn't about a certificate or in some genuine manner submitting to law and the role that a legislature plays in the institution of marriage. The objection is to a marriage license, and what that means.
A license is permission from a competent authority to do something that without such permission is illegal. To require permission from the state to marry means that there is a defacto prohibition against marriage—and forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils. St. Valentine is revered for solemnizing marriages which the emperor outlawed.
Also, a marriage license is a contract which makes the state a third and equal party to the marriage. It is what gives the state a say in how property is divided and who is given custody of the children, not just in the cases of divorce, but every second that the contract is in force (as was cited in the case concerning Nebraska.)
This is what I've been told, anyway, and in the course of my legal research and talk with probate lawyers, I've found the claims made by those of whom I know to object to a license to be true to the extent described above.
Marriage licenses are a relatively new legal development. Before they began to be widely required, marriages were still being performed and officially recognized, protected and enforced. Ceremonies were held in which parties exchanged vows before witnesses, and documents and records were signed and filed. Each one of those marriages is a common law marriage.
Except for some hippies still reeling from the 60's and those influenced by them, the objection isn't about a certificate or in some genuine manner submitting to law and the role that a legislature plays in the institution of marriage. The objection is to a marriage license, and what that means.
A license is permission from a competent authority to do something that without such permission is illegal. To require permission from the state to marry means that there is a defacto prohibition against marriage—and forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils. St. Valentine is revered for solemnizing marriages which the emperor outlawed.
Also, a marriage license is a contract which makes the state a third and equal party to the marriage. It is what gives the state a say in how property is divided and who is given custody of the children, not just in the cases of divorce, but every second that the contract is in force (as was cited in the case concerning Nebraska.)
This is what I've been told, anyway, and in the course of my legal research and talk with probate lawyers, I've found the claims made by those of whom I know to object to a license to be true to the extent described above.
Marriage licenses are a relatively new legal development. Before they began to be widely required, marriages were still being performed and officially recognized, protected and enforced. Ceremonies were held in which parties exchanged vows before witnesses, and documents and records were signed and filed. Each one of those marriages is a common law marriage.
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbsup::thumbsup: Agreed completely and correct on ALL counts !! :wavey:...My wife and I debated prior to out EVER paying the State for a "license"...Now, to avoid confusion...let's not pretend that a couple might merely "shack-up" without any PUBLIC vows made before God and man. They can't...marriage isn't a "personal" thing between the couple and God...It is a "Public" and "social" one.
Thus, I believe that if a regenerate and godly man and woman wish to make a public vow before Godly witnesses...and hopefully presided-over, or "officiated-by" someone who is recognizably a Spiritual authority (such as a godly father (of one of the spouses) or a Pastor, then any publically made vows before God and man....constitute a true marriage. If the particular couple in our scenario did no such thing....then they are NOT married...but if they did, then they are as "married" as anyone is, and it is short-sighted (at minimum for a Christian to ignore that)....If this is the case jprieto..
Then they are NOT!!! married, and are merely a whore and an whoremonger.
Marriage is INDEED a "Social" institution, but not necessarily a "legal" one, and that is where the disconnect lies. People continuously confuse the two. I have no problem with a State government which PROTECTS the social and Spiritual institution of marriage for it's own purposes...that is a GOOD thing. But it cannot "regulate" them.
My wife and I live in Florida, a state which recognizes the so-called "no-fault" divorce.
You "Godly" Christians may bow yourselves down to that sinful state's liscensure all you want...but, as for me and my house....we have no need for your wicked government's permission.....nor a license from such a godless institution to obey the Lord's encouragement to marry in covenant fashion and raise children in a God-fearing home.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi and God bless,
I often find folks croswsing swords with me for what I'm about to give you for an answer. The very moment a man and a woman r a boy and a girl unite in the act of sex, they are married in the eyes of God. In the beginning there was Adam and there was Eve, nowhere was a judge, pastor, preacher nor a licensing beaureau to be found. Such was the case, also for their children and their children's children.
When Jacob, a.k.a. Israel, was tricked into marrying Leah it was night and he just went in to her and coupled with her in marriage. The Marriage of Isaac was the same. When Abraham's servant returned with Rebecka, she went into his mother's tent and without further ado, coupled with her and was married.
This case here has a lot oif facets to be considered here and the truth is that your pastor and some members have fallen for onhe of Satan's slickest tricks and have fallen into the sin of Legalism. The certificate fee is the Marriage Tax and amounts to nothing more! The requirements for Common Law Marriages differ some what from state but here in Texas if a man regesters at the local over-night brothel as man and wife or if he introduces her as his wife and she does not protest, they must, legally get a divorce to seperate.
The reason so many protest and object to0 this teaching is because the favorite sin of young men and women, often takes place in or on the back seat of a car. On the other hand, let's examine one more of the multiple facets of this real life situation. We are taught not to cause another to stumble and that places the couple in the position where it should be on their hearts to make their union public and to be an example for the Youth of the Church Family to see.
So it is, you see, that I will not condemn them but rather would move to be close with them and gently, very gently, try to move them towards marrying one another in the eyes of the people around them.
Again, God bless and I pray this helps.
I'm definitely going to disagree with the above. A marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman ratified by an oath. It is a word and a promise that creates a marriage. It is the image of God in man, and the picture of Christ and the church, who stand in covenant relationship one with the Other, Who, because he could swear by no greater sware by Himself, saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
Adam had a ceremony. God presented Adam with his bride, and Adam's pronouncement was, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She did not become one flesh with him until the ceremony and the vow, and the oath is what made them one flesh. Not the sex, which, as far as we can tell didn't happen immediately.
No. Sex does not create a marriage. A man can commit adultery, and he can commit fornication, but therein he does not "commit marriage."
Correct again.:thumbs: It is really rather simple. A Covenant vow, publically taken between two people and God, and in the face of witnesses= marriage, all else is ancillary.
Neighbor, that's a lot of assumption concerning the mind of God. Should I bow or should I scoff... Iḿ not going to bow. You have taken a single instance in scripture to destroy what the recorded Word of God has illustrated and I find you to be standing on very, scripturally, shaky ground.
One hard rule I have found to be secure and true after the past, near, twenty-three years of constant study is, "If God says it, it is valuable to hear. If He bothers to repeat it, it is important to God and should be a molded in concrete rule for us but if we can see that God has made three notes of some principal, we must learn to build our lives on it." And these folks have made that commitment of fidelity you speak of and that must, also, come into play in our (Man made) decisions.
So, I am left to conclude that you have sent Isaac, Jacob, their wives, children and billions of others to Hell and you feel good about it, I cannot go there. If you have kept up with my posts, even casually, you know that I am always skating on the edge because of my call to foloks to examine themselves but you have just become equal with God here.
Please read your Bible in the light of the above post to Aaron.