Write a Response.

[creativemechanic]

1 hour ago, bryan said:

Response: "Exactly.  Marrying someone who isn't yet a Christian can be fine but needs to be considered carefully.  Is your future spouse basically living like a Christian but hasn't been saved yet?  Can your example as a Christian spouse likely convince them to become saved?  If you think so, then your wedding will be blessed"

nope. its blatant disobedience to God. No ifs buts or maybes. Some Christians get all sorts of excuses but is a direct command

[JohnD]

I don't know if this is what you are looking for...

People fall under the spell of romance and love and wanting to make a life together a home, and babies (usually). The Apostle Paul spoke of "doing well" if one marries but if one is celibate (without 'burning" with lust) the one who does not marry "does better." As one head over heels in love with my beloved bride, I never understood this until recently.

Sex and sexuality are among the most insane attributes of fallen humanity (which is another way of saying insane humanity). Most people are "normal" and regular Joes and on and on... I've argued with these rebuttals ad nauseam... bottom line (no matter what level of your faith in humanity is) humans go against our loving Creator consciously and unconsciously and that's just plain nuts!

If it weren't for the strong drive to mate the human race would have been extinct in a few generations (IMHO).

So, that being said,

We have two fallen natured human beings attempting to make one life together. The deck is already stacked against them... why invite disaster by saddling one's self with someone so diametrically opposed to your most important attribute (your faith in Christ)?

 

[creativemechanic]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

Sorry, creativemechanic, but I don't understand what you requested.

 Context - I was preachig at our churchs  youth wee. My topic was Separation making reference to the story of Lot. I mentioned that an important are of separation is is in relationships with unsaved people. A young lady in the congregation loudly exclaims-  Youre bringing them to the Lord. Part that i didnt include in the Op was that after the service had ended, we were socialising and the lady dropped a comment to me saying "....according to him , me and my unsaved boyfriend."

I just thought the situation a bit interesting and wanted to know how others would have responded.

[bryan]

It's an interesting situation to examine.  At what line does a Christian consider something to be 'unequally yoked' such that marriage would be wrong?

Suppose it was changed to this?

Response: "Exactly.  Marrying someone who isn't a practicing Christian can be fine but needs to be considered carefully.  Suppose your future spouse was saved as a child, had a bad experience with the church, and hasn't returned since.  Since leaving church, they have lived as a Christian regardless.  Can your example as a Christian spouse likely convince them to become saved?  If you think so, then your wedding will be blessed"

[Neighbor]

8 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

 Context - I was preachig at our churchs  youth wee. My topic was Separation making reference to the story of Lot. I mentioned that an important are of separation is is in relationships with unsaved people. A young lady in the congregation loudly exclaims-  Youre bringing them to the Lord. Part that i didnt include in the Op was that after the service had ended, we were socialising and the lady dropped a comment to me saying "....according to him , me and my unsaved boyfriend."

I just thought the situation a bit interesting and wanted to know how others would have responded.

 Okay, here is my own offering regarding the subject: For discussion purposes I  suggest that  if quick witted at the time, I might have apologized for not making myself clear, and for perhaps not including the responses of Paul  to the questions asked of him by the individuals at the church at Corinth. And then  I hopefully would have suggested that  we all might benefit from reading  1 Corinthians 7 in it's entirety. And made a point to say, please have a good conversation with your own pastor/teachers and especially the deaconesses of some older and mature knowledge of the Bible, as well as your parents, with the intent that you will benefit from a discussion afterward about the "what ifs" that might be pertaining in  people's lives today.

Put real flesh and bones on the guidance from the Bible, and see how the Holy Spirit will reveal the guidance with instruction for personal relationships, including those very close and personal ones. And once again, I suggest that  the application for today  has to be considered culture  of today against culture past ( Or different). If that is done it may be  at the end that  the idea of dating is wrong more than the idea of dating out of the same  faith. Why? Because the passion(s) Paul was bluntly discussing is no different within the same faith as it is across or out of it. Dating exposes the flesh to sexual passion without prior commitment of betrothal. It is a game played for sure, but it does carry the risks associated culturally  with sex regardless of who is saved and whom is not.

Also, the idea of betrothal needs be discussed in light of the custom of a year long betrothal, different from a engagement period of today. It had far more serious and binding standard ( See some reference to it at  1 Corinthians 7).

The whole subject of the customs of the Jewish coupling arrangements of the time is almost necessary  if one is to  have fullest understanding of  what Paul  was teaching, and for that matter what our Lord Jesus  is teaching us about  His bride the church.

 

Paul acknowledges the very real extremely intense  "burning" and states by permission ( Of the Holy Spirit is my own thought) and not of command that it is best to marry. That does not cover dating at all if there was no dating in the culture. Do we then change our custom and culture, have arranged betrothals from birth for our female children? Is that a possibility? I think it is certainly not one. So what then, how do we cover application of the idea it might be best to burn for someone in th efaith over omeone out of it? Are we so arrogant and ignorant as to think that  two in the faith will not , cannot have sex resulting in pregnancy? Seems to me there is population galore to suggest that  isn't the case. Christian females and Christian males can and do burn just as intensely for each other as  non christians. It is rather foolish to think otherwise.

So regarding the  young lady/youth that  spoke of her unsaved boyfriend, there is far more to her plight (And his) than  the issue of salvation alone. There is no "comeback" for passion. There is question of why she would denote him as being unsaved. And why is she dating. Those two  subjects might make for a great conversation- but, only in the presence of  others for the protection  of the teacher from later gossip or accusation of impropriety, and for the sake of the youthful woman/girl.

 

While it may be slightly easier to couple up with someone of the same faith than it is to couple up with someone that has no faith 2 Corinthians 6:14 is not addressing it. It might also be stated that  the very real circumstance was  being questioned about the conversion of  a couple,  a married couple both faithful to Judaiasm until one is converted to Christianity  by th eHoly Spirit, becoming born again. If they are unequally yoked or not, plus what to do about it. Paul addresses that issue and by application one may  say  he gives permission to remain  coupled. he does not ban  unequally faithed individuals from  becoming betrothed, instead he encourages no union at all, for the time is short. That in of itself has questionable application  today, for if the time is short nearly two thousand years ago what can it mean today? Is he talking of a lifetime being short or the time  for our Lord's return to be short, soon to come? Hard subject there.

Anyway kids ( Most) are going to date for the culture  makes it so. To just say no  you cannot date, and you definitely cannot date out of the Christian faith is not going to meet the need. There needs be a much more thorough study with prayer and understanding that comes to the Christian via the Holy Spirit's revealing something the non-Christian does not possess for there is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And what of the very young that date, date prior to  an age of accountability do they have the capacity to have the wisdom, the leading by the Holy Spirit? Or do they have to rely upon the  demands of a loving parent that does understand and does have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Seems to me the challenge is far greater than  one to be answered by,-  you shall not date out of the faith.

Praise God for His mercy upon us. We sure are in need.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Neighbor

[Neighbor]

VBS or any kids retreat or youth conference carries with it great responsibility for its leaders pastors teachers  deaconesses involved. AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PARENT.

There should be no separation of the kids from their family's authority, and responsibilty. No teacher should presume that authority for themself.

And parents should never ever abandon their own responsibility for teaching their children to a youth leader at church!!!!!  The parent must be, absolutely must be involved for the protection ( physical and spiritual) of their own child.

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Neighbor

[creativemechanic]

6 hours ago, bryan said:

It's an interesting situation to examine.  At what line does a Christian consider something to be 'unequally yoked' such that marriage would be wrong?

Suppose it was changed to this?

Response: "Exactly.  Marrying someone who isn't a practicing Christian can be fine but needs to be considered carefully.  Suppose your future spouse was saved as a child, had a bad experience with the church, and hasn't returned since.  Since leaving church, they have lived as a Christian regardless.  Can your example as a Christian spouse likely convince them to become saved?  If you think so, then your wedding will be blessed"

See this is the point I previously  made. You're just adding various side questions  and  variables to a straightforward  command

. It's like saying this - the bible says homosexuality  But at what point  doesthe homosexuality start?  At what point should we Christians consider it wrong. Dating? Sex? Kissing? Maybe the had bad experienxes with srraight people and out example could bring them to christ.

Doesn't work does it? Well the same principle  applies. If we argue with God's word with our own logic or we could justify anything 

[bryan]

58 minutes ago, creativemechanic said:

See this is the point I previously  made. You're just adding various side questions  and  variables to a straightforward  command

. It's like saying this - the bible says homosexuality  But at what point  doesthe homosexuality start?  At what point should we Christians consider it wrong. Dating? Sex? Kissing? Maybe the had bad experienxes with srraight people and out example could bring them to christ.

Doesn't work does it? Well the same principle  applies. If we argue with God's word with our own logic or we could justify anything 

That seems to say your interpretation of the scripture is right and anything else is wrong.  Discussions about whether women should be allowed to speak in church or to 'turn the other cheek' use similar arguments saying 'you can't argue with the word of God'.  

Suppose a Catholic wants to marry a Lutheran.  The Lutheran considers the Catholic beliefs to not be true Christians because of various Catholic practices.  Taken to that level, people should only marry those in their current church.  

We're all interpreting scripture based on the translation of the bible we're using as well as the culture and context of the scripture being examined.  If we look at all that and come believe a specific interpretation is correct, that's what we follow.  Discussing and looking at how the scripture would be applied to life allows us verify that interpretation.  If we're too proud or arrogant to think our interpretation may not be right, we're placing ourselves above the scripture.

[creativemechanic]

1 hour ago, bryan said:

Your argument pretty much  is summed up in that comic.

It's not my interpretation. 99.9% of the  Christians you ask will probably say that the verse means not to get into relationships with the unsaved.

In my experience  ( growing up in church and spending most of my life as a part of youth group) what ive found is this, people will agree with bible verses directly when it's something they have no problem with doing. However,when the verse forbids something we want to do,we (including Christians )get technical. 

So instead of taking what the verse says at face value (be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers )we try to find every crack or loophole to find an exception -what if.....,how about...... thats your interpretation.

I've seen many people who had unequally yoked relationships stubbornly stick stick them despite warningd from older more mature Christians and they  always  and up in disaster 

Ask yourself this.  Since most mature Christians  see it as wrong, and i see no issues with it. Who has the problem

Ifyou want culture and context go right ahead. The verses go on to explain more of why  the principle is important and also throughout  history look of the effects of Israelites hooking up with non beleivers-Samson and his different women,Solomon and his  wives 

 

 

 

 

 

That seems to say your interpretation of the scripture is right and anything else is wrong.  Discussions about whether women should be allowed to speak in church or to 'turn the other cheek' use similar arguments saying 'you can't argue with the word of God'.  

Suppose a Catholic wants to marry a Lutheran.  The Lutheran considers the Catholic beliefs to not be true Christians because of various Catholic practices.  Taken to that level, people should only marry those in their current church.  

We're all interpreting scripture based on the translation of the bible we're using as well as the culture and context of the scripture being examined.  If we look at all that and come believe a specific interpretation is correct, that's what we follow.  Discussing and looking at how the scripture would be applied to life allows us verify that interpretation.  If we're too proud or arrogant to think our interpretation may not be right, we're placing ourselves above the 

[creativemechanic]

4 hours ago, Neighbor said:

VBS or any kids retreat or youth conference carries with it great responsibility for its leaders pastors teachers  deaconesses involved. AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PARENT.

There should be no separation of the kids from their family's authority, and responsibilty. No teacher should presume that authority for themself.

And parents should never ever abandon their own responsibility for teaching their children to a youth leader at church!!!!!  The parent must be, absolutely must be involved for the protection ( physical and spiritual) of their own child.

 

But  youre assuming the parets themselves  are Christian and have Christian moral. Some flat out don't and will teach contrary to it