Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Marriage Matters
Facebook

Notices

Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #541  
Old 09-17-2017, 03:31 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
A license protects people from bigamy, from father's marrying off their fifteen year old daughters so they doesn't have to feed them, from dowry murders, from NAMBLA marrying prepubescent boys as their "natural" right, from psycho-twins power activate so bro and sis can marry each other, from two star-struck lovers stealing a car and rushing off to Vegas at the tender age of fifteen.

It does nothing harmful at all to anyone. It is the state's means of recognizing the natural law and tendency of the human race, to bind ourselves together, man to woman, and procreate and perpetuate not only the race, but the state, as the citizenry grows. It is fully in the interests of the state to sanction marriage as a natural right, so the state may properly manage its affairs.

Therefore a marriage license is a proper protection put into place by the higher powers which were ordained of God. It is part of the sword the Lord's minister's bear so they may enact revenge and execute God's wrath upon evildoers. To resist this as though it's some great evil or sin to have one is to resist the ordinance of God and receive damnation in so doing.
Marriage licenses per se are certainly within the state's authority to recognise and enforce legitimate genuine marriages and to prohibit illegitimate unions. The problem though is two-fold:

1. Marriage is not consummated by the state, it can only be recognized (or not). The state's recognition or lack thereof does not and cannot determine if a union is or is not marriage. The state can only recognize as legitimate a genuine marriage for enforcement purposes, or refuse to recognize an unlawful union (unlawful being determined by God's Word).

2. The state has granted civil recognition to unions that are not, never were, and never can be marriage. The state has decided IT defines marriage (and divorce), which is an unlawful overreach and usurpation of authority. As a result, whether the state recognizes a marriage as valid or not has no bearing on whether a union is an actual marriage or not.

Civil unions (states sanctioned "marriage") must therefore be considered separately from actual marriage. The two categories may and do intersect, but one does not define the other. The civil power can and ought to be availed of insofar as it is useful to promoting and benefitting genuine marriage. But it can never be a substitute for God.

As for licenses prior to marriage, it is arguable whether the states have constitutional authority to license marriage to begin with. But in this day and age, it may be akin to "just a pinch of incense". Couples who reject a marriage license for conscience sake ought not to be disparaged for that. However, it is duplicitous and dishonest to refuse the license for principles, and then obtain the license for financial reasons.

If a man is going to draw a line in the sand, he can't just redraw it for convenience' sake. That just shows incincerity.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

  #542  
Old 09-17-2017, 03:39 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
To be legally binding, it must be signed by a commissioner or judge.

Couples can agree on support without the court, but when one or the other fails to abide by their end of the agreement, tough luck, buttercup.
If both persons are submitted to ecclesiastical authority and both agree to follow Scripture, then a civil court is not needed, unless maybe to file paperwork and obtain the force of law to enforce a mutual contract.

If however one person rejects the authority of God and refuses to allow disputes to be settled within the church, they will do whatever they want, including dragging the other person into a secular court and demanding that Caesar render his verdict. The other party can then either suffer themselves to be defrauded (1 Corinthians 6:7) or argue as best they can in the court and pray for success.

This of course supposes the secular courts are legitimate to begin with. If that supposition is not in place, well then...
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

  #543  
Old 09-17-2017, 06:37 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Couples who reject a marriage license for conscience sake ought not to be disparaged for that. However, it is duplicitous and dishonest to refuse the license for principles, and then obtain the license for financial reasons.

If a man is going to draw a line in the sand, he can't just redraw it for convenience' sake. That just shows insincerity.
You killed it my brother!

You knocked it right out of the park.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
  #544  
Old 09-18-2017, 01:59 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
A license protects people from bigamy, from father's marrying off their fifteen year old daughters so they doesn't have to feed them, from dowry murders, from NAMBLA marrying prepubescent boys as their "natural" right, from psycho-twins power activate so bro and sis can marry each other, from two star-crossed lovers stealing a car and rushing off to Vegas at the tender age of fifteen.

It does nothing harmful at all to anyone. It is the state's means of recognizing the natural law and tendency of the human race, to bind ourselves together, man to woman, and procreate and perpetuate not only the race, but the state, as the citizenry grows. It is fully in the interests of the state to sanction marriage as a natural right, so the state may properly manage its affairs.

Therefore a marriage license is a proper protection put into place by the higher powers which were ordained of God. It is part of the sword the Lord's minister's bear so they may enact revenge and execute God's wrath upon evildoers. To resist this as though it's some great evil or sin to have one is to resist the ordinance of God and receive damnation in so doing.
I don't disagree that there are some benefits to civil marriage. Nor I'm not arguing that it should be abolished. I'm proposing freedom of conscience in the matter.

Various Christians have historically taken issue with civil marriage on religious grounds since it began. And today there are various pastors and churches that take issue with it from many different denominations. Should their religious convictions be respected, or should they be condemned, harassed, and essentially FORCED into supporting a civil contract with the government that they disagree with in order to be respected members in the body of Christ? Most of these support home schooling, and refuse to support other things that support the encroaching power of government into areas of conscience. Should they be forced to send their kids to government schools? There comes a point wherein individual conscience should be respected, even if there are disagreements on finer points.

Our house church fellowship refuses incorporation and ministerial licensing with the state. As a result, no elder within our fellowship can legally sign state marriage licenses if they wanted to. Our elders firmly believe that what God joins together, let no man (or agency of man) put asunder. Therefore, our elders bless couples in the eyes of God, and leave each couple free to choose for themselves if they wish to enter into a civil contract with the government or not. If they wish, they are free to go get a license and have a Justice of the Peace marry them. They are free to do this before or after any church related ceremony, vows, promises, or commitments are performed. It might help to know that a very strong Christian libertarian, or Christian anarchist, thread exists in our fellowship. We wouldn't force any couple into a civil contract that they disagreed with. In addition, a number of us do take issue with the civil contract in that its terms and conditions are unbiblical. Our last discussion about government leaned toward the idea that it would be of spiritual value if Christians chose not to vote, seeing how both leading parties are corrupt, and how partisan politics is dividing the body. I explain this only to help you understand the nature of our faith.

Should our fellowship be forced to incorporate?
Should our elders be forced into being licensed with the state?
Should couples be forced into an unbiblical civil contract that they disagree with?
Should elders seek to sway congregants into voting a certain party?
Should Christians take up arms and kill for Caesar?

We firmly say, "no".

We don't condemn any church or fellowship who chooses to do these things. However, we also affirm liberty of conscience in these matters for ourselves.

Are these convictions any less valid than others?

Last edited by Aquila; 09-18-2017 at 02:54 PM.
  #545  
Old 09-18-2017, 02:59 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
You killed it my brother!

You knocked it right out of the park.
I take it that you agreed with the remainder of his post?
  #546  
Old 09-18-2017, 03:00 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Marriage licenses per se are certainly within the state's authority to recognise and enforce legitimate genuine marriages and to prohibit illegitimate unions. The problem though is two-fold:

1. Marriage is not consummated by the state, it can only be recognized (or not). The state's recognition or lack thereof does not and cannot determine if a union is or is not marriage. The state can only recognize as legitimate a genuine marriage for enforcement purposes, or refuse to recognize an unlawful union (unlawful being determined by God's Word).

2. The state has granted civil recognition to unions that are not, never were, and never can be marriage. The state has decided IT defines marriage (and divorce), which is an unlawful overreach and usurpation of authority. As a result, whether the state recognizes a marriage as valid or not has no bearing on whether a union is an actual marriage or not.

Civil unions (states sanctioned "marriage") must therefore be considered separately from actual marriage. The two categories may and do intersect, but one does not define the other. The civil power can and ought to be availed of insofar as it is useful to promoting and benefitting genuine marriage. But it can never be a substitute for God.

As for licenses prior to marriage, it is arguable whether the states have constitutional authority to license marriage to begin with. But in this day and age, it may be akin to "just a pinch of incense". Couples who reject a marriage license for conscience sake ought not to be disparaged for that. However, it is duplicitous and dishonest to refuse the license for principles, and then obtain the license for financial reasons.

If a man is going to draw a line in the sand, he can't just redraw it for convenience' sake. That just shows incincerity.
Thank you for a very balanced and truthful post.

Last edited by Aquila; 09-18-2017 at 03:02 PM.
  #547  
Old 09-18-2017, 03:19 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Even the Baptists are starting to see it:

Pastors want covenant certificates to replace marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news...iage-licenses/
Three ministers—Kyle Henderson, pastor of First Baptist Church in Athens; Brent Gentzel, pastor of First Baptist Church in Kaufman; and Kris Segrest, pastor of First Baptist Church in Wylie—have organized a meeting to discuss the issues with other pastors Nov. 16, the eve of the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting in Waco, at 8 p.m. in Bennett Auditorium on the Baylor University campus.

At the meeting, the pastors will provide sample statements of faith, church policies, covenant marriage certificates and the proposed constitutional amendment.

Henderson quit signing marriage licenses about a year and a half ago.

‘Increasingly uncomfortable’

“I had grown increasingly uncomfortable acting as an agent of the state,” he said.

Instead, he wanted couples to sign their vows to certify the covenant they made with each other before God, and then go on their own to register their marriage with the state.

On Oct. 22, First Baptist in Athens approved changes to its statement of faith, adding an article on “covenant marriage,” pointing to Ephesians 5:21-33 as its normative expression.

At the same time, the church amended its personnel handbook to say staff members employed by the church and its related ministries are exclusively allowed to officiate covenant marriage ceremonies and exclusively authorized to sign covenant marriage certificates.
  #548  
Old 09-19-2017, 01:27 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
I don't disagree that there are some benefits to civil marriage. Nor I'm not arguing that it should be abolished. I'm proposing freedom of conscience in the matter.

Various Christians have historically taken issue with civil marriage on religious grounds since it began. And today there are various pastors and churches that take issue with it from many different denominations. Should their religious convictions be respected, or should they be condemned, harassed, and essentially FORCED into supporting a civil contract with the government that they disagree with in order to be respected members in the body of Christ? Most of these support home schooling, and refuse to support other things that support the encroaching power of government into areas of conscience. Should they be forced to send their kids to government schools? There comes a point wherein individual conscience should be respected, even if there are disagreements on finer points.

Our house church fellowship refuses incorporation and ministerial licensing with the state. As a result, no elder within our fellowship can legally sign state marriage licenses if they wanted to. Our elders firmly believe that what God joins together, let no man (or agency of man) put asunder. Therefore, our elders bless couples in the eyes of God, and leave each couple free to choose for themselves if they wish to enter into a civil contract with the government or not. If they wish, they are free to go get a license and have a Justice of the Peace marry them. They are free to do this before or after any church related ceremony, vows, promises, or commitments are performed. It might help to know that a very strong Christian libertarian, or Christian anarchist, thread exists in our fellowship. We wouldn't force any couple into a civil contract that they disagreed with. In addition, a number of us do take issue with the civil contract in that its terms and conditions are unbiblical. Our last discussion about government leaned toward the idea that it would be of spiritual value if Christians chose not to vote, seeing how both leading parties are corrupt, and how partisan politics is dividing the body. I explain this only to help you understand the nature of our faith.

Should our fellowship be forced to incorporate?
Should our elders be forced into being licensed with the state?
Should couples be forced into an unbiblical civil contract that they disagree with?
Should elders seek to sway congregants into voting a certain party?
Should Christians take up arms and kill for Caesar?

We firmly say, "no".

We don't condemn any church or fellowship who chooses to do these things. However, we also affirm liberty of conscience in these matters for ourselves.

Are these convictions any less valid than others?
Aquila, whether you see it this way or not, signing your names to a family Bible in front of witnesses is a civil contract. Civil refers to civilization, of which, you have not removed yourselves (compared to say, the Amish). In a court of law, that page could be used as proof of a contractual obligation of marriage, along with the testimony of anyone there present when it was signed. Same with the vows; to break them would mean the violation of a verbal contractual agreement, which can be cited in civil court.

All you did was take a big step back from what you thought was contrary to your convictions, but the step you took wasn't big enough. You still entered into a civil contract (a binding agreement recognized by the state if ever brought before them), just one that looks a lot different from the kind most people are familiar with.

The fact is, all marriages ancient to modern, the world over, are civil contracts to the civilization(s) in which they take place, regardless of the rituals or rites performed, one culture and nation to the next. Even Abraham having Eliezer place his hand upon his loins and swear an oath to not take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites was a civil contract recognized in that day and time, along with the jewels Eliezer gave to Rebekah as a bride-price, done in the presence of her father. These, too, are evidence of a civil contract.

Now, they look totally different from going to a county courthouse and having a clerk print off a piece of paper and having someone with the legal right, sign it. But it's still the same thing, just under a different societal aegis.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/
  #549  
Old 09-19-2017, 02:05 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
Aquila, whether you see it this way or not, signing your names to a family Bible in front of witnesses is a civil contract. Civil refers to civilization, of which, you have not removed yourselves (compared to say, the Amish). In a court of law, that page could be used as proof of a contractual obligation of marriage, along with the testimony of anyone there present when it was signed. Same with the vows; to break them would mean the violation of a verbal contractual agreement, which can be cited in civil court.

All you did was take a big step back from what you thought was contrary to your convictions, but the step you took wasn't big enough. You still entered into a civil contract (a binding agreement recognized by the state if ever brought before them), just one that looks a lot different from the kind most people are familiar with.

The fact is, all marriages ancient to modern, the world over, are civil contracts to the civilization(s) in which they take place, regardless of the rituals or rites performed, one culture and nation to the next. Even Abraham having Eliezer place his hand upon his loins and swear an oath to not take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites was a civil contract recognized in that day and time, along with the jewels Eliezer gave to Rebekah as a bride-price, done in the presence of her father. These, too, are evidence of a civil contract.

Now, they look totally different from going to a county courthouse and having a clerk print off a piece of paper and having someone with the legal right, sign it. But it's still the same thing, just under a different societal aegis.
"Civil contract" in this sense means a contract drafted and recognized by the state. And to the best of my understanding, Ohio wouldn't recognize a signed Bible as a marriage under state authority.
  #550  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:54 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Marriage Rejuvenation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
"Civil contract" in this sense means a contract drafted and recognized by the state. And to the best of my understanding, Ohio wouldn't recognize a signed Bible as a marriage under state authority.
Yes, but here's the thing: by circumventing the state of Ohio, you have become a "state" unto yourself. You and your assembly are acting as free, non-state participants in an organization, however it's actually organized, that governs itself as if a state. Ipso facto, a signed Bible before this "state" is a civil contract within the civilization you would call "home church fellowship".

Secondly, even if the state of Ohio didn't recognize the signed Bible as a state-sanctioned marriage, per state law and regulation, the state can still recognize that a signed, binding, legal agreement was entered into, if such a need to make such an argument before the court ever came to light.

You have all stepped outside of, or out from underneath the state, as it pertains to ecclesiastical concerns, which is fine and within the law, to a degree, to do. But when you do that, you become your own entity that has rules and regulations that members of the community are honor-bound to uphold and obey, to be a part of that community. Doing so incorporates you into a legally recognized body. You may not have a recognized "corporate person", such as an LLC might have, but you have by-laws, such as you have shared here in this thread, which effectively acts as the Constitution of your civilization. You even have marriage customs ordained by the community as binding.

All of this makes for a civil contract no matter which way you slice it, even if it's not officially recognized by any outside group. Within your group, you have made a civil contract of marriage that your group recognizes as legitimate per it's own governing body politic. However, this contract was one to which your conscience did not object. But it's still what it is.

Even Adam and Eve had as much. The sign of their marriage was Adam's rib in Eve. His rib inside of her bound them to each other, flesh of each other's flesh, bone of each other's bone, and etc. When Adam said that, he was speaking a vow of marriage, that he and Eve would become one flesh, a promise and commitment that functioned as a legally binding contract, legal in terms of God's Law at the time.

Therefore there's no escaping it. It's not about civil contract, or state recognition, or going to Caesar. That's just the front. Because the reality is, a contract was drafted by your "state", i.e. your house church fellowship, it was signed and dated and ratified by your "state", witnessed and sanctioned by the ruling authorities of the community (that is, your "state"), and, presumably, dedicated to the glory of God, as opposed to Caesar.

All well and good, but what ought to be said is that, it's not civil contracts or state recognition or Caesar's involvement in marriage that's the issue, the issue is what kind of contract does the civilization offer, what particular state are you seeking recognition from, and what overarching authority do you want to be involved, and what, at the rubber meets the road moment, do you feel you ought to choose.

The only question is, if you reject the civil contracts of marriage given by the state (of Ohio, or wherever), and refuse to allow secular government to have any involvement in the marriage, does God approve of those decisions, or does He expect you to work within the secular magisterium He has created and placed over you in the world as rewarders of them that do good and avengers against those who do evil, as God's ministers?

Now, it might be easy to rush into an answer and proceed accordingly. But consider something in the fear of God: if you are wrong, and mistakenly reject the counsel of God in this matter, every action that follows that mistake is sinful. If God doesn't consider you married, because of such a rejection, even if it was done sincerely, but mistakenly, it's not an excuse. To say you are married if/when God says otherwise is to bear false witness. To consummate and experience conjugal "due benevolence", claiming to be married and therefore within your sacred rights, is merely fornication, if such a rejection of the counsel of God in this matter occurs.

The end of such a road is damnation, unless repentance occurs and subjection to the formerly rejected counsel of God takes place.

The same, however, cannot be said of anyone with a marriage license from their local, secular government.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/

Last edited by votivesoul; 09-19-2017 at 03:59 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What comes after same sex marriage? Sam Political Talk 10 09-17-2012 01:29 AM
Gay Marriage: For or Against? Charnock Fellowship Hall 636 11-19-2010 02:44 PM
How did you propose marriage? Margies3 Fellowship Hall 31 03-06-2009 11:14 AM
Same Sex Marriage Sam Fellowship Hall 0 02-06-2009 05:28 PM
Gay Marriage Dedicated Mind Fellowship Hall 43 11-18-2008 09:14 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.