[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That is specifically what I asked you NOT to do, lol. Besides, the passage you cited is the very passage in question. What I am asking for is where does anyone in the Bible specifically teach that one can sin while NOT transgressing the law, or (which is basically the same thing) that God's moral standard for regulating human social behavior is something other than those standards detailed by the law, in His laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, and ordinances?

I apologize for not getting back sooner.

We both agree that transgression of the Law is sin. However, there are other dimensions of "sin". Whatever is not of faith is sin. Whenever one knows what is good and right, and chooses not to do it, it is sin. There are also sins against the Holy Spirit such as grieving, quenching, tempting, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. While under the Mosaic covenant, sin was primarily a focus on the Law. However, Jesus often said, "It has been said, but I say unto you...", and with that, Jesus takes it far deeper, raising the bar far higher.

According to the National Association of Christian Ministers, ministers are licensed by their church or denomination. Some states require said ministers to register with the State in order to perform marriages (as in Ohio), while most others simply recognize marriages performed by a minister licensed with his/her church organization. So, no stare to my knowledge licenses ministers, as ministers, but some do register already licensed ministers in order to validate marriages performed by them. Ohio actually calls it filling out an "Ohio minister's license application". See here: https://nacministers.com/answers-faq...ined-minister/

The whole thing seems to run afoul of any existing State religious establishment clauses (state versions of the first article of the Bill of Rights) but America abandoned rule of law decades ago, it seems.

If government is involved at all, it should only be state side. State's rights.

Biblically, a marriage was an agreement between the bride, the bride's parents, the groom, and the groom's parents, requiring witnesses, and a consummating act. A dowry or bride-price was usually involved. Since marriage and divorce were subject to interference or intervention by judges/courts (subject to their jurisdiction), it follows that existing legal requirements to validate either would need to be followed (somekind of lawfully recognized documentation a marriage had occurred, for example, compliant with the local laws), as well as parental agreement and the agreement of the two parties getting married. Chattel bondage and private war prisoners are outlawed across most of the globe, so the voluntary nature of marriage remains.

So basically, a man would seek permission from both his and the woman's parents to marry her. That being granted and all parties agreed, a public declaration (ceremony) before witnesses would take place, followed by the consummation, and then whatever legal paperwork needs to be filed to validly record the marriage.

If local law requires a "performer" of the marriage, then just about any judge or Justice of the Peace could do it (depending on location). Technically, and scripturally, though, a father "gives his daughter in marriage", so Biblically that's as close as actually "performing" a marriage as I can find.

Fatherless women and other extraordinary cases would have to adjust their procedures accordingly while being as true to Scripture as possible.

Elopement against parental wishes is no more recognized as valid by Scripture than is "gay marriage". Christians ought to restore parental involvement in the marriage decision process, it's there for a reason. In fact, it used to be in place throughout Christendom up until the Enlightenment began eroding it, along with everything else, in western civilization.

Amen. The role and authority of the family has been all but erased in our culture. I can only agree that the family should be more involved. As it relates to various civil laws, state marriage statutes, etc., I would bring back common law statutes and leave the management of wedding traditions, etc., up to couples, and involve the state as little as possible. Allow marriage to be governed by individuals, churches, and families. It seemed to be far more personal back before the state took it over.