another topic for discussion

[Marilyn C]

I agree with wingnut,

 

Marriage is a heart issue & only God can sort that one out.

 

Marilyn.

[missmuffet]

 

 

 

If they are not committed then they are not committed.  I can't imagine God would recognize a non-committed relationship as a valid union.  I would say that is nothing more than the lust of the flesh.  As for people that enter into such a situation committed to each other, I would say that is a union.  For example, Adam and Eve didn't have a wedding ceremony.

 

I think they did. God brought them together and adam spoke words of commitment. That was a ceremony in my eyes.

 

22 And the LORD God made the rib (which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

 

 

 

I agree with your thoughts on this, but by today's definition that would be called a common law marriage.  No minister, no witnesses, no piece of paper, just two people making a commitment to each other before God.

 

 

I dont view that as a common law marriage though. Common law marriage is 2 people sharing a bed and home for a specified time period and the state deciding it is a marriage. Two people making a commitment before God without it being legal in the eyes of the state isnt doing a real marriage in my view either because it isnt one that is recognized in the eyes of our society. What happened with adam and eve was a marriage that was one in the culture (of a whole 2 people plus God) of the time. 

 

That is what I think.Common law marriage is not the same as making a commitment before God.It seems to me like it is similar to living together.

[Guest LadyC]

and since only God knows whether the couple living together is "married" in his sight because they made a commitment before God, wouldn't shacking up be the definition of the appearance of sin? 

[wingnut-]

 

I dont view that as a common law marriage though. Common law marriage is 2 people sharing a bed and home for a specified time period and the state deciding it is a marriage. Two people making a commitment before God without it being legal in the eyes of the state isnt doing a real marriage in my view either because it isnt one that is recognized in the eyes of our society. What happened with adam and eve was a marriage that was one in the culture (of a whole 2 people plus God) of the time. 

 

 

 

Well, I think there are two points here that need to be made.  First, I can't assume to know that these two people are viewing their commitment as nothing more than sharing a bed and a home, if they are committed to each other long term then they are committed.  I don't have to understand their reasoning in regards to why they don't make it official as society deems customary, but I can think of a few reasons why people may not go that route.

 

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, time has no relevance to God, He is the same today as He was at the beginning.  So if Adam and Eve and the example set forth represent a legitimate union (which I am sure we agree they did), then the same would hold true today.

[alphaparticle]

I can't believe I missed this topic ... I hope it's not too late.

 

I speculate that all other things being equal a valid marriage is one that is declared to exist by the relevant parties in a public way. There doesn't seem to be a set ceremony in the bible. The only way I can see that state opinion matters biblically is that we are also told in the NT to obey authorities and laws in a general sense. But, here is something else I wonder about, it doesn't break the law if Ms. X and Mr. Y declare that they are married in their living room in front of a few witnesses, then decide that they are married and behave that way entirely. That seems like a valid marriage to me. But, then again, the social expectation in our culture is that if you are 'really' marriage you get it formalized by the state, and given that understanding you probably should do that.

[Ezra]

Do you think a marriage has to take place in a Church?God is all around us.Don't you think that God can be present on the beach or on a mountain side?

That's hardly the issue.  If the couple is not saved, being married in a church would simply be hypocrisy. 

 

But for Christians, marriage is also a public Christian testimony, and therefore the church is the logical place to solemnize it.  The fact that God is everywhere is irrelevant.  God's people gather together in a church assembly and a commitment is made in their presence, just as it is when a person is baptized.

 

Whether saved or unsaved, a marriage is a solemn commitment, whereas common-law relationships are tentative, otherwise they would be marriages.  In most cultures, marriage is such a commitment, and divorce is generally taboo.  It is only in the West that divorce and remarriage rears its ugly head with rapid frequency, and that too is a relatively new phenomenon.  What should be really disturbing is that divorce and remarriage has also become a phenomenon among Christians.

[alphaparticle]

I never saw a particular reason to get married in a church building. That isn't specified in the NT as far as I can tell.

[Ezra]

As far as biblical references, Adam and Eve, legitimate union or not?

 

Since the LORD God personally solemnized the first marriage, how could there even be such a question?  It was MORE THAN legitimate. It was the foundation for all human marriages, but it was also a type for marriage between Christ and His Church (Eph 5:30-31).  When Adam said "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" (Gen 2:23) he was prophetically speaking the words of Christ to His Church.  How do Christians manage to miss all this and ask about the legitimacy of the first marriage?

[Ezra]

I never saw a particular reason to get married in a church building. That isn't specified in the NT as far as I can tell.

The church is not a building but the local assembly of believers. But since Christians do meet in designated buildings, that should be a given.   And just because something is not specified in the NT does not mean that it is invalid.  Printing the Gospel on paper and distributing it as tracts is not specificied in the NT either.  Would you therefore question its validity?

[alphaparticle]

 

I never saw a particular reason to get married in a church building. That isn't specified in the NT as far as I can tell.

The church is not a building but the local assembly of believers. But since Christians do meet in designated buildings, that should be a given.   And just because something is not specified in the NT does not mean that it is invalid.  Printing the Gospel on paper and distributing it as tracts is not specificied in the NT either.  Would you therefore question its validity?

 

I would question that it is implicitly obligatory, or even a preferable method of spreading the gospel. Likewise I question that getting married in a church building ought to be considered the default, or best method.