Intimacy before marriage: which are the principles behind it?

[theInquirer]

So I have a sort of abnormal question: is sex supposed to be saved for that one person you will marry or is it to be saved for marriage?  While those two might sound like the same thing, I am primarily referring to situations of engagement where one essentially knows who they will marry, but they aren't married yet.  Is sex to be saved just for marriage or just for the one person you'll marry?  

I mean, I suppose one could argue that the whole basis for saving sex for just that one person that you'll marry could only be that it ought to be saved for marriage exclusively in the first place, but I'm not sure that's a valid argument or not, so I need some constructive advice.  

Also, I guess it's somewhat a given, but I do want to point out that I am NOT trying to find a basis for having sex (I'm not married); rather, I am attempting to better understand the principles behind God's keeping sex for marriage so that I may comprehend further what other standards of behavior would be acceptable in a relationship.  

[wingnut-]

The marriage covenant is specifically linked to Jesus Christ and His bride.  So who is His bride.  Those born again.  One is not born again in advance, they are not part of the bride until they enter the covenant.  The same is true of marriage between two people, any intimacy prior to entering the covenant is an act of the flesh, not of the Spirit.

God bless

[theInquirer]

8 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The marriage covenant is specifically linked to Jesus Christ and His bride.  So who is His bride.  Those born again.  One is not born again in advance, they are not part of the bride until they enter the covenant.  The same is true of marriage between two people, any intimacy prior to entering the covenant is an act of the flesh, not of the Spirit.

God bless

That makes sense although if any intimacy on any level prior to the covenant is an act of the flesh, then are all forms of communicating love, like acts of service, words of affirmation, giving gifts, hugging, etc., are those also banned?

[wingnut-]

21 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

That makes sense although if any intimacy on any level prior to the covenant is an act of the flesh, then are all forms of communicating love, like acts of service, words of affirmation, giving gifts, hugging, etc., are those also banned?

 

Some things can be harmless in and of themselves, it really depends on the two individuals.  Consider what Jesus had to say in regards to lustful thoughts themselves and then equate that to where some of these things can and do often lead.  Many people stumble with the best of intentions, there is a reason.  Avoiding temptation should be the primary focus in my opinion, call me old fashioned.

God bless

[theInquirer]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

 

Some things can be harmless in and of themselves, it really depends on the two individuals.  Consider what Jesus had to say in regards to lustful thoughts themselves and then equate that to where some of these things can and do often lead.  Many people stumble with the best of intentions, there is a reason.  Avoiding temptation should be the primary focus in my opinion, call me old fashioned.

God bless

No I know what you mean, but I'm talking about things that are completely non-sexual, both in thought and deed, things that inspire no sexual desires or thoughts whatsoever in a person, yet are still a form of intimacy, albeit not sexual.  

[wingnut-]

10 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

No I know what you mean, but I'm talking about things that are completely non-sexual, both in thought and deed, things that inspire no sexual desires or thoughts whatsoever in a person, yet are still a form of intimacy, albeit not sexual.  

 

The issue you will run into here, is what one person deems intimate another may not.  In areas like that, you could get a different response from each person you talk about with it.  I think it comes down to personal conviction.  For me personally, I know the difference between right and wrong, without question, following the proper path is entirely on me at that point.

So for instance, my views are more in line with traditional courtships.  You are interested in someone, so you let your intentions be known.  You spend time with that individual, get to know them, and decide if this is an individual you can see a future with.  If so, then you move forward, if not, then you part ways.  I don't think showering someone with gifts is of any benefit long term, and I don't think physical contact leads to good decisions.  Flattery also seems to go hand in hand with motives, but speaking from the heart is an expression of truth, so I see a distinction there.

[missmuffet]

Check out these verses and decide for yourself.

Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7

[theInquirer]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

The marriage covenant is specifically linked to Jesus Christ and His bride.  So who is His bride.  Those born again.  One is not born again in advance, they are not part of the bride until they enter the covenant.  The same is true of marriage between two people, any intimacy prior to entering the covenant is an act of the flesh, not of the Spirit.

God bless

Also marriage was first done in the Old Testament, i.e. before Jesus came, so how do you expand this argument to apply to those times?

[wingnut-]

4 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

Also marriage was first done in the Old Testament, i.e. before Jesus came, so how do you expand this argument to apply to those times?

 

The Lord established the marriage covenant from the start, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[theInquirer]

50 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

The Lord established the marriage covenant from the start, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I know, but I'm saying because of how you said the marriage covenant was sort of a reflection of Jesus and the church, but Jesus hadn't come back then, so how could it be a reflection back then of what did not exist then?