# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Consecrating a marital union

## Christian Liberty

What happens if a virgin has sex with a non virgin?  In other words, a person who is "married" according to this doctrine has sex to someone who is "unmarried".

Is the unmarried person still unmarried or not?

----------


## MelissaWV

If you're going to address your questions to one person, PM seems much smarter.  If they don't answer, maybe there's a reason.

----------


## BetterCallSaul

But Sola Fide regularly claims that he is speaking for God

----------


## eduardo89

I was actually thinking about making a thread on this yesterday but with the question:

What if a non-virgin rapes a virgin. Is the virgin still married to the rapist, if so, doesn't that contradict what marriage is since the rapist would be married to more than one person? If not, can a person be married to someone but their spouse not be married to them? (The rape victim is married to the rapist, but the rapist is married to whoever he lost his virginity to).

----------


## VIDEODROME

wtf

----------


## jllundqu

Wow... you people need to get out more...

----------


## TonySutton

better just to stone all of them...  /s

----------


## eduardo89

> wtf


Yes, that is the normal reaction to someone claiming that a rape victim is married to her rapist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> wtf





> Yes, that is the normal reaction to someone claiming that a rape victim is married to her rapist.


That's honestly the most bizarre part of the doctrine to me.  I'm not sure what Sola_Fide's answer is, but I think I've figured out logically that Marc Carpenter ("Outside the Camp") would logically have to say that if a *married* woman is raped than she should have to live celibate for the rest of her life rather than returning to her husband.  When you put together the fact that he believes that sex = marriage and that having sex while married creates an adulterous union and therefore makes it illegitimate to be reconciled (Yes, I'm serious, Outside the Camp literally teaches this) logically Marc would have to teach that a rapist can force divorce by committing rape.

At the risk of sound emotional, what the heck?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Further reading on this view :

*What Constitutes Marriage*
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm


Marc Carpenter always responds to his email if you have questions, I'd ask him.

----------


## jmdrake

> Further reading on this view :
> 
> *What Constitutes Marriage*
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm
> 
> 
> Marc Carpenter always responds to his email if you have questions, I'd ask him.


Congratulations!  Your cult has at least one other member!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Further reading on this view :
> 
> *What Constitutes Marriage*
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm
> 
> 
> Marc Carpenter always responds to his email if you have questions, I'd ask him.


I've read that article.  I'm not 100% certain it answered the question I asked,  You also did say that you don't condone everything on OTC, so I'm not certain whether or not you 100% agree with any answer he gives.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Congratulations!  Your cult has at least one other member!


I told you that it wasn't just him.

----------


## jmdrake

Here's another question.  Little girl gets molested as a baby.  She doesn't remember it.  She grows up and gets married to someone.  Later, for whatever reason, the memory comes back.  Adulterous?

And Marc Carpenter's analysis of Tamar ignores the historical context.  Women had a hard time back then.  Nobody wanted to marry someone who wasn't a virgin regardless of the reason why.  This wasn't a religious edict.  It was cultural stupidity.

----------


## eduardo89

> I was actually thinking about making a thread on this yesterday but with the question:
> 
> What if a non-virgin rapes a virgin. Is the virgin still married to the rapist, if so, doesn't that contradict what marriage is since the rapist would be married to more than one person? If not, can a person be married to someone but their spouse not be married to them? (The rape victim is married to the rapist, but the rapist is married to whoever he lost his virginity to).


Sola, can you answer your opinion on this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here's another question.  Little girl gets molested as a baby.  She doesn't remember it.  She grows up and gets married to someone.  Later, for whatever reason, the memory comes back.  Adulterous?


And this, is she unregenerate for being adulterous, even if she believes the gospel exactly the same way as you do?

I think Marc Carpenter is boxed in a corner where he'd have to say yes, and then say that somehow she was unregenerate, because if she was regenerate she would have remembered.  I think that's literally the only option Marc Carpenter would have.




> And Marc Carpenter's analysis of Tamar ignores the historical context.  Women had a hard time back then.  Nobody wanted to marry someone who wasn't a virgin regardless of the reason why.  This wasn't a religious edict.  It was cultural stupidity.


That's exactly how I took it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, can you answer your opinion on this?


I'm not sure I have an opinion yet.  But I sure love watching you adulterers writhe  and squirm your way through this.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not sure I have an opinion yet.  But I sure love watching you adulterers writhe  and squirm your way through this.


Adulterers?

----------


## fr33

If you even have to ask this question, your basis of morality is $#@!.

----------


## eduardo89

> If you even have to ask this question, your basis of morality is $#@!.


We all know the answer, we all know Sola is completely wrong on this. We're just curious how he can come to such a twisted and sick conclusion which has no Biblical support.

----------


## Sola_Fide

More reading on this view:

*What God Says About Marriage*
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriagelaw.htm

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure I have an opinion yet.  But I sure love watching you adulterers writhe  and squirm your way through this.


Sola, I can tell you this much.  If Marc Carpenter were correct, my parents would be adulterers.  That said, I've never had sex with anybody.  So I don't have any personal stake in this.  I'm not going to lie and claim that I'm not an adulterer, because to do so would be to deny that I have ever had lust, but Marc Carpenter being correct here would not change the fact that I'm not in any adulterous relationship.

I have issues with the logical implications of Carpenter's viewpoint.  I don't dissent from it because I am in any sense of the imagination trying to excuse anything I have personally done.

With that being said, that Marc Carpenter being correct would not make me any more of an adulterer than I would be because of the Sermon on the Mount, can you please answer my questions?

Also, since Marc has said that being sexually attracted to a woman who is not your spouse (I don't disagree with this part of what he says, for the record), combining that with his "Sex = marriage" view leaves a position where it is impossible for a Christian not to  sin, unless he has sexual intercourse before being sexually attracted.  Which is almost  certainly logically impossible, and thus contradicts the scriptures where it says God ALWAYS gives man a way out of temptation.

----------


## eduardo89

We don't care what the 'Outside the Camp' cult has to say, Sola. We want to hear YOUR opinion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Adulterers?


I don't understand how he can assume that all, or even any, of us have had sex with more than one person, or with someone else who had sex with more than one person.

Especially considering my age and upbringing (Some of which is in my sig, the rest of which I've been fairly open about), statistically while its not a sure thing, its not surprising at all that I've never had sex.

Of course, its possible that Sola wasn't referring to me when he made that statement, but it doesn't really matter.  Its an assumption all the way true, even if his view was 100% true.




> If you even have to ask this question, your basis of morality is $#@!.


I wasn't asking because I actually agree or might agree.  I asked because I was curious what his answer was.



> We all know the answer, we all know Sola is completely wrong on this. We're just curious how he can come to such a twisted and sick conclusion which has no Biblical support.


Despite the fact that I completely disagree with him, I have to admit the Leah situation is one that I never quite understood, and probably makes more sense in Carpenter's view than  it does to the rest of us.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We don't care what the 'Outside the Camp' cult has to say, Sola. We want to hear YOUR opinion.


I wish I could +rep it more than once.  I've read both of the articles he linked and they don't answer my questions.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola, I can tell you this much.  If Marc Carpenter were correct, my parents would be adulterers.  That said, I've never had sex with anybody.  So I don't have any personal stake in this.  I'm not going to lie and claim that I'm not an adulterer, because to do so would be to deny that I have ever had lust, but Marc Carpenter being correct here would not change the fact that I'm not in any adulterous relationship.


You know, I hadn't thought of that.  If you've lusted you've already committed adultery.  Since adultery is having sex, you've already have had sex and hence you are already married.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I can tell you this much.  If Marc Carpenter were correct, my parents would be adulterers.


So...what now?






> That said, I've never had sex with anybody.  So I don't have any personal stake in this.  I'm not going to lie and claim that I'm not an adulterer, because to do so would be to deny that I have ever had lust, but Marc Carpenter being correct here would not change the fact that I'm not in any adulterous relationship.
> 
> I have issues with the logical implications of Carpenter's viewpoint.  I don't dissent from it because I am in any sense of the imagination trying to excuse anything I have personally done.
> 
> With that being said, that Marc Carpenter being correct would not make me any more of an adulterer than I would be because of the Sermon on the Mount, can you please answer my questions?
> 
> Also, since Marc has said that being sexually attracted to a woman who is not your spouse (I don't disagree with this part of what he says, for the record), combining that with his "Sex = marriage" view leaves a position where it is impossible for a Christian not to  sin, unless he has sexual intercourse before being sexually attracted.  Which is almost  certainly logically impossible, and thus contradicts the scriptures where it says God ALWAYS gives man a way out of temptation.


I'm not even saying this is necessarily my view...but it does make me think (and it makes all of you think too).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know, I hadn't thought of that.  If you've lusted you've already committed adultery.  Since adultery is having sex, you've already have had sex and hence you are already married.


I didn't actually think about that either.  But, I think its clear that there is a difference between lust and bona fide adultery.  Jesus' point was that nobody can claim to be good.  But I don't think that if the sex = marriage was true that it would automatically make lust = marriage.

(Disclaimer: I don't agree with sex = marriage either.)

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if it's just in her butt?

----------


## eduardo89

> You know, I hadn't thought of that.  If you've lusted you've already committed adultery.  Since adultery is having sex, you've already have had sex and hence you are already married.


So I guess Sola is also an adulterer, just like all of us! Sola, you better NEVER have sex, except with the first woman you lusted over, even if it was when you were 10, didn't know her name, and have no idea who or where she is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So...what now?


What do you mean "What now?" 

They haven't read this article, if that's what you're asking,.  And with all due respect, I'd have a rough time insulting their intelligence by asking them to read OTC.  Anyone who thinks James White and Charles Spurgeon are going to Hell because they speak peace to Arminians is a cultist.

That said, even if sex did = marriage, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament teaches that if someone illegitimately gets divorced and remarries, they should stay with the new spouse.  Which would also refute the OTC position.





> I'm not even saying this is necessarily my view...but it does make me think (and it makes all of you think too).


My point in posting that is this, whatever my motivations for questioning this, it is not an attempt to justify my own sin or any personal relationship.

Tamar is relatively easy to deal with, and I think jmdrake, whatever you may think about literally anything else he says, said pretty much all that needs be said about that.

The harlot is also fairly easy, IMO.  The sex act makes two people one flesh, physically.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are married.

Leah, admittedly, is trickier, and I don't have a good answer to that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So I guess Sola is also an adulterer, just like all of us! Sola, you better NEVER have sex, except with the first woman you lusted over, even if it was when you were 10, didn't know her name, and have no idea who or where she is.


This may be a strawman of his position, but I laughed.



> What do you mean "What now?" 
> 
> They haven't read this article, if that's what you're asking,. And with all due respect, I'd have a rough time insulting their intelligence by asking them to read OTC. Anyone who thinks James White and Charles Spurgeon are going to Hell because they speak peace to Arminians is a cultist.
> 
> That said, even if sex did = marriage, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament teaches that if someone illegitimately gets divorced and remarries, they should stay with the new spouse. Which would also refute the OTC position.


Also, my parents (And me, for that matter) would qualify as "Tolerant Calvinists" by OTC's definition, and so we'd all be damned anyway.  If I don't agree with them on that, why should I care about anything else they say?  Even if I did agree with them on that, what on earth would be the point of telling my parents that they are adulterers according to OTC when OTC also says they are damned?

----------


## eduardo89

> What if it's just in her butt?


You're married to her and her poop is your kids which you must love and take care of.

----------


## eduardo89

> They haven't read this article, if that's what you're asking,.


I read through it, not very attentively, I'll admit. But I did read the majority of it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I read through it, not very attentively, I'll admit. But I did read the majority of it.


I honestly didn't understand the point of Sola's question.  He asked "What now?"  As if I was the one who was supposedly in adultery according to this bizarre viewpoint.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Divinely predestined bump

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here's another question.  Little girl gets molested as a baby.  She doesn't remember it.  She grows up and gets married to someone.  Later, for whatever reason, the memory comes back.  Adulterous?


This is an excellent question.  And if she's unknowingly committing adultery, is she also unregenerate, even if she believes in the gospel exactly as you do?

Sola_Fide, do you have an answer to this one?

Also, according  to this doctrine, are incestuous marriages possible?  Mind you, we know they are evil, but are they theoretically possible, according to this doctrine?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide, do you have an answer to this one?


Good question.  This is where I'd ask my question:  otc@outsidethecamp.org

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK, in a discussion regarding whether government should be involved in marriage on another forum, somebody brought up John 4:17-18.  While I don't think that text proves the affirmative position on government involvement (Which was their intent in posting it) I think it may disprove the Sola_Fide/OTC position on this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Good question.  This is where I'd ask my question:  otc@outsidethecamp.org


I already emailed Marc about something else, so I'm not going to keep spamming his email.  Assuming he does indeed answer his email (And doesn't tell me to stop wasting his time because I'm a damned heretic before then) I'll ask him eventually.  

That said, I wasn't asking Marc.  I was asking you.  Even if you don't know for sure, do you have any idea?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK, in a discussion regarding whether government should be involved in marriage on another forum, somebody brought up John 4:17-18.  While I don't think that text proves the affirmative position on government involvement (Which was their intent in posting it) I think it may disprove the Sola_Fide/OTC position on this.


Are you kidding me son?  You're going to become a supporter of state marriage on this issue?  You should be ashamed.

What if neither church or state had anything to say about marriage?

----------


## eduardo89

> What if neither church or state had anything to say about marriage?


Except Church does.

----------


## Sola_Fide

(By the way, you aren't going to find any Christian website that is more anti-state than otc, but that is neither here nor there.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except Church does.


No it doesn't.  There is NOTHING in the Scripture that says that.

----------


## fr33

> What if neither church or state had anything to say about marriage?


We can only dream of such a reality and how nice it would be if we didn't have these professional control freaks attempting to run our lives.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you kidding me son?  You're going to become a supporter of state marriage on this issue?  You should be ashamed.


No, absolutely not.  You took me out of context.  Another poster tried to use that verse to justify a position that the government should be involved in marriage.  That was how I noticed the verse.  But I do not agree with their interpretation of the verse.

I do, however, think that it calls the "sex = marriage" view into question.

My personal belief is that the CHURCH should deal with marriage.  It shouldn't be a government thing, and it shouldn't be a purely individual "I'm going to go sleep with someone and say I'm married to them."




> What if neither church or state had anything to say about marriage?


I don't want the State to have anything to say about it (I'll admit that I'm ashamed that I confused you on that front) but I don't see how the church could ever have nothing to say about it.




> (By the way, you aren't going to find any Christian website that is more anti-state than otc, but that is neither here nor there.)


Yes you can.  OTC is solid on that front, when they do discuss politics, but LibertarianChristians.com is more libertarian than OTC is.  Or at least more vocally so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No it doesn't.  There is NOTHING in the Scripture that says that.


You already know eduardo doesn't care about this.  I'd cite the wedding of cana as evidence of my position that Biblical marriage is a ceremony, although I'll admit that that's flimsy.

----------


## eduardo89

> You already know eduardo doesn't care about this.


You're an idiot if you think this and it just shows how oblivious you are to Catholic theology if you think I believe that. Everything the Church teaches is grounded in Scripture and nothing the Church teaches can ever contradict or negate what Scripture teaches.




> I'd cite the wedding of cana as evidence of my position that Biblical marriage is a ceremony, although I'll admit that that's flimsy.


There is a lot of evidence that marriage is a Sacrament. 

I know this is a bit long, but it explains it extremely well:




> *Proof of sacramental character of Christian marriage*
> 
> In the proof of Apostolicity of the doctrine that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law, it will suffice to show that the Church has in fact always taught concerning marriage what belongs to the essence of a sacrament. The name sacrament cannot be cited as satisfactory evidence, since it did not acquire until a late period the exclusively technical meaning it has today; both in pre-Christian times and in the first centuries of the Christian Era it had a much broader and more indefinite signification. In this sense is to be understood the statement of Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Arcanum" (10 February, 1880): "To the teaching of the Apostles, indeed, are to be referred the doctrines which our holy fathers, the councils, and the tradition of the Universal Church have always taught, namely that Christ Our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament." The pope rightly emphasizes the importance of the tradition of the Universal Church. Without this it would be very difficult to get from the Scriptures and the Fathers clear and decisive proof for all, even the unlearned, that marriage is a sacrament in the strict sense of the word. The process of demonstration would be too long and would require a knowledge of theology which the ordinary faithful do not possess. In themselves, however, the direct testimonies of the Scriptures and of several of the Fathers are of sufficient weight to constitute a real proof, despite the denial of a few theologians past and present.
> 
> The classical Scriptural text is the declaration of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.), who emphatically declares that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and His Church: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." After this exhortation the Apostle alludes to the Divine institution of marriage in the prophetical words proclaimed by God through Adam: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh." He then concludes with the significant words in which he characterizes Christian marriage: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church."
> It would be rash, of course, to infer immediately from the expression, "This is a great sacrament", that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense, for the meaning of the word sacrament, as already remarked, is too indefinite. But considering the expression in its relation to the preceding words, we are led to the conclusion that it is to be taken in the strict sense of a sacrament of the New Law. The love of Christian spouses for each other should be modelled on the love between Christ and the Church, because Christian marriage, as a copy and token of the union of Christ with the Church, is a great mystery or sacrament. It would not be a solemn, mysterious symbol of the union of Christ with the Church, which takes concrete form in the individual members of the Church, unless it efficaciously represented this union, i.e. not merely by signifying the supernatural life-union of Christ with the Church, but also by causing that union to be realized in the individual members; or, in other words, by conferring the supernatural life of grace. The first marriage between Adam and Eve in Paradise was a symbol of this union; in fact, merely as a symbol, it surpassed individual Christian marriages, inasmuch as it was an antecedent type, whereas individual Christian marriages are subsequent representations. There would be no reason, therefore, why the Apostle should refer with such emphasis to Christian marriage as so great a sacrament, if the greatness of Christian marriage did not lie in the fact, that it is not a mere sign, but an efficacious sign of the life of grace. In fact, it would be entirely out of keeping with the economy of the New Testament if we possessed a sign of grace and salvation instituted by God which was only an empty sign, and not an efficacious one. Elsewhere (Galatians 4:9), St. Paul emphasizes in a most significant fashion the difference between the Old and the New Testament, when he calls the religious rites of the former "weak and needy elements" which could not of themselves confer true sanctity, the effect of true justice and sanctity being reserved for the New Testament and its religious rites. If, therefore, he terms Christian marriage, as a religious act, a great sacrament, he means not to reduce it to the low plane of the Old Testament rites, to the plane of a "weak and needy element", but rather to show its importance as a sign of the life of grace, and, like the other sacraments, an efficacious sign. St. Paul, then, does not speak of marriage as a true sacrament in explicit and immediately apparent fashion, but only in such wise that the doctrine must be deduced from his words. Hence, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV), in the dogmatic chapter on marriage, says that the sacramental effect of grace in marriage is "intimated" by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians (quod Paulus Apostolus innuit). For further confirmation of the doctrine that marriage under the New Law confers grace and is therefore included among the true sacraments, the Council of Trent refers to the Holy Fathers, the earlier councils, and the ever manifest tradition of the universal Church. The teaching of the Fathers and the constant tradition of the Church, as already remarked, set forth the dogma of Christian marriage as a sacrament, not in the scientific, theological terminology of later time, but only in substance. Substantially, the following elements belong to a sacrament of the New Law:
> 
> it must be a sacred religious rite instituted by Christ;
> this rite must be a sign of interior sanctification;
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're an idiot if you think this and it just shows how oblivious you are to Catholic theology if you think I believe that. Everything the Church teaches is grounded in Scripture and nothing the Church teaches can ever contradict or negate what Scripture teaches.


I said that because IIRC tradition could verify such a concept for Catholics even if it was not found in scripture.




> There is a lot of evidence that marriage is a Sacrament.


Marriage cannot be a sacrament because it is applied to unbelievers as well.  The only sacraments/ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper.



> I know this is a bit long, but it explains it extremely well:


Will read, but probably not tonight.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're an idiot if you think this and it just shows how oblivious you are to Catholic theology if you think I believe that. Everything the Church teaches is grounded in Scripture and nothing the Church teaches can ever contradict or negate what Scripture teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of evidence that marriage is a Sacrament. 
> 
> I know this is a bit long, but it explains it extremely well:


Instead of copy/paste from Catholic Answers (who don't care about Biblical authority), why don't you attempt to show from the Scripture where the church or state validates marriage.

----------


## eduardo89

> I said that because IIRC tradition could verify such a concept for Catholics even if it was not found in scripture.


Scripture is tradition, just in written form. Divine Revelation cannot contradict itself, whether in written or oral form.




> Marriage cannot be a sacrament because it is applied to unbelievers as well.  The only sacraments/ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper.


There are different types of marriages, which Saint Paul acknowledged. While a marriage between two non-believers (whether atheist, pagan, Jew, Muslims, or any other non-Christian) would be valid, it would only be a natural marriage and can be dissolved (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). 

Marriage between a Protestant couple or an Orthodox couple, or any other Christian for that matter, would not only be valid, but would also be supernatural (sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, you say that to Eduardo yet you continually link to "Outside the Camp".

Can you answer any of my questions for yourself?  (This particular one doesn't count.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are different types of marriages, which Saint Paul acknowledged. While a marriage between two non-believers (whether atheist, pagan, Jew, Muslims, or any other non-Christian) would be valid, it would only be a natural marriage and can be dissolved (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). 
> 
> Marriage between a Protestant couple or an Orthodox couple, or any other Christian for that matter, would not only be valid, but would also be supernatural (sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.


What is the third type then?

----------


## eduardo89

> Instead of copy/paste from Catholic Answers (who don't care about Biblical authority), why don't you attempt to show from the Scripture where the church or state validates marriage.


I didn't copy/pasta anything from Catholic Answers, click on the link at the bottom to see the source and read the full thing, it's very well written and sourced, much better than I could ever do (which is why I linked to it). And Catholics do care about Biblical authority, so quite lying about that (as usual). 

Oh and I never have said the state validates marriage.

----------


## eduardo89

> What is the third type then?


What do you mean a third type? Marriage, if valid, is either natural or supernatural (sacramental). In the case of the former it can be dissolved, in the case of the latter it cannot until the death of a spouse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you mean a third type? Marriage, if valid, is either natural or supernatural (sacramental). In the case of the former it can be dissolved, in the case of the latter it cannot until the death of a spouse.


Somehow I misread the word "There" as "three."

I guess that shows me I've stayed up too late doing this

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, you say that to Eduardo yet you continually link to "Outside the Camp".
> 
> Can you answer any of my questions for yourself?  (This particular one doesn't count.)


No, I can't answer your questions, since I am still in the question stage myself.  That is why I keep trying, and trying, and trying to direct you to others who could answer your questions (and mine) about this view.

I will admit that this is a side issue that piqued my interest a while back, and I am still in the stages of trying to work through this on a Biblical level.  I don't have answers...Im sorry.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I can't answer your questions, since I am still in the question stage myself.  That is why I keep trying, and trying, and trying to direct you to others who could answer your questions (and mine) about this view.


OK, fair enough.  Thank you for admitting to that.




> I will admit that this is a side issue that piqued my interest a while back, and I am still in the stages of trying to work through this on a Biblical level.  I don't have answers...Im sorry.


How can it be a side issue if it has massive implications regarding who is or is not regenerate?  For instance, if this view was correct, as OTC portrays it, that would prove that they are unregenerate.  (Mind you, I get that OTC would say they are already unregenerate for being "Tolerant Calvinists.")

----------


## Roxi

Sex = Marriage???? lololol okay then.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sex = Marriage???? lololol okay then.


I don't believe that.  I thought Sola_Fide did, but he seems unsure now.  Maybe some of our questions are getting him to wonder if its actually a tenable position.

If Marc actually ever emails me back answers to  my questions about "Tolerant Calvinists" I'll quiz him on this as well (And likely laugh at the insanity of the answers).  I'd rather not spam his inbox while waiting for an answer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can it be a side issue if it has massive implications regarding who is or is not regenerate?  For instance, if this view was correct, as OTC portrays it, that would prove that they are unregenerate.  (Mind you, I get that OTC would say they are already unregenerate for being "Tolerant Calvinists.")


I don't know.  Again your asking me questions I'm still working through on a Biblical level.  I'm not sure.

One thing that could sway me is if it could be shown that a church or a state ever validated marriage in the New Testament.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  Again your asking me questions I'm still working through on a Biblical level.  I'm not sure.


[/QUOTE]

I think I'm illustrating for you just how bizarre OTC theology is.  The bottom line, they SAY you don't have to agree with them on everything in order to be saved, but they construct their theology in such a way that you pretty much do.

I'm sure it doesn't surprise you that James White has no more patience for Marc Carpenter than the other way around.




> One thing that could sway me is if it could be shown that a church or a state ever validated marriage in the New Testament.


John 2 comes to mind.

That said, I don't know the details of what that ceremony entailed.

As someone who rejects legal positivism, I can agree with you that what the government says about marriage is pretty much irrelevant.  The church may be a different matter.

That said, I don't see any Biblical text that actually says sex equals marriage either.  

And the part about rape being equal to marriage, particularly a rape that may not even be remembered, I think shows logically that it doesn't work.

Think about it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't believe that.  I thought Sola_Fide did, but he seems unsure now.  Maybe some of our questions are getting him to wonder if its actually a tenable position


Haha...no.  It is just a few people here who are pushing this (you included) who make it seem like this view...and this view alone...is the ONLY thing that matters to me....haha.

But they do it because they want to hang me with it (a view I'm not sure I fully endorse) for the reason of distracting everyone from the truth of the gospel of grace.

I will say this though, if this view is Biblical, and if you are a Christian, it should change your entire view of this life.

----------


## TER

> John 2 comes to mind.
> 
> That said, I don't know the details of what that ceremony entailed.


It was between a man and a woman.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It was between a man and a woman.


Where...in John 2 is the prescription for a church to validate marriage?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That said, I don't see any Biblical text that actually says sex equals marriage either.


Yes it does.




> *1 Corinthians 6:16 
> 
> Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? 
> 
> For, as it is written, "The two shall become one."
> *

----------


## Roxi

> Yes it does.






> *1 Corinthians 6:16 
> 
> Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? 
> 
> For, as it is written, "The two shall become one."*



Ohhhhhhhhhh wow. Really? You get marriage from that? Step back a bit my dear and maybe realize that your God may not have been as literal as you think.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Haha...no.  It is just a few people here who are pushing this (you included) who make it seem like this view...and this view alone...is the ONLY thing that matters to me....haha.


No, I don't think that.  




> But they do it because they want to hang me with it (a view I'm not sure I fully endorse) for the reason of distracting everyone from the truth of the gospel of grace.


I'm pretty sure I believe the same gospel that you do.  So that's clearly not my motivation here.

My motivation here is that this would affect the regenerate/unregenerate status of a lot of people, at least if OTC's spin on this view was correct (I suppose it could be argued that a regenerate person could ignorantly live in such a relationship, but that's not OTC's position.)

This really isn't a side issue like infant baptism or eschatology is, its something that would affect the spiritual state of a lot of people.




> I will say this though, if this view is Biblical, and if you are a Christian, it should change your entire view of this life.


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "this life."  

It would certainly make my head spin.




> Where...in John 2 is the prescription for a church to validate marriage?


There's not a "Perscription" for it.  But there is a wedding ceremony, that Jesus seems to bless.  There is precedent.



> Yes it does.


Your interpretation is imposssible unless you believe polygamy to be possible in the modern day, because otherwise the harlot would already be married to somebody else.  So "One flesh" cannot possibly mean marriage in this case.  I believe its talking about the physical union that takes place, and the emotional bond that comes with it, not a legitimate marriage.  If it were a legitimate marriage, Paul wouldn't be commanding against it.  Marrying a harlot is also clearly not per say immoral because of Hosea.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What if it's just in her butt?


What if it's in yours?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What if it's in yours?


I think we can assume that gay sex doesn't create a homosexual marriage.  I think we know better than that

----------


## pacelli

It depends.  Depends on the perspective of the virgin and the non-virgin.

Also depends on the perpective of the sick $#@! that contemplates these sorts of issues in the first place.  Can't we all just leave Teh Collinz alone?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It depends.  Depends on the perspective of the virgin and the non-virgin.
> 
> Also depends on the perpective of the sick $#@! that contemplates these sorts of issues in the first place.  Can't we all just leave Teh Collinz alone?


OK, fine.  I'll admit to being sick if that will possibly  help me to get one step closer to  knowing exactly what the Bible teaches here.

(For the record, I do not agree with Sola_Fide/OTC on this, but I'm open  to hearing what the scriptures have to say.)

Also, this thread isn't about Collins at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump.

----------


## eduardo89

> Bump.


Why? Haven't we had enough of this ridiculous and idiotic argument? Sex does not equal marriage, although sex is an integral part of marriage since procreation is its principle purpose.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why? Haven't we had enough of this ridiculous and idiotic argument? Sex does not equal marriage, although sex is an integral part of marriage since procreation is its principle purpose.


While I still believe its somewhat ridiculous, especially when you get into some of the implications (I'll probably ask Carpenter about those eventually just because I'm curious how he'll respond) I'm still curious if Sola_Fide has a response to this:




> Your interpretation is imposssible unless you believe polygamy to be possible in the modern day, because otherwise the harlot would already be married to somebody else. So "One flesh" cannot possibly mean marriage in this case. I believe its talking about the physical union that takes place, and the emotional bond that comes with it, not a legitimate marriage. If it were a legitimate marriage, Paul wouldn't be commanding against it. Marrying a harlot is also clearly not per say immoral because of Hosea.

----------


## Alex Libman

Sex does not create a marital union.  A contract to create a marital union creates a marital union.  Duh.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sex does not create a marital union.  A contract to create a marital union creates a marital union.  Duh.


As much as I hate to do this since I agree with you, considering the topic of the thread you should probably show some Biblical proof of this.  I offered John 2, a wedding which Jesus blessed, as an argument that wedding ceremonies were clearly customary, although I admit that isn't  100% conclusive.  Do you have anything to add?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If Marc actually ever emails me back answers to  my questions about "Tolerant Calvinists" I'll quiz him on this as well (And likely laugh at the insanity of the answers).  I'd rather not spam his inbox while waiting for an answer.


They did, and I did ask them, but I think they're too tired of me to actually answer at this point.  I don't really blame them either.  To them I'm already unregenerate as a "Tolerant Calvinist" so they don't care what my view on marriage is.  Why would they?

Sola, check your VM wall.  I got into some of the reasons why these people are absolutely insane...

----------


## fr33

If I wanted to make Christians look insane, I'd keep bumping this topic. One really has to wonder if FF is just a troll.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If I wanted to make Christians look insane, I'd keep bumping this topic. One really has to wonder if FF is just a troll.


Its more like making Carpenterites look crazy.  They aren't really Christians.

----------


## fr33

> Its more like making Carpenterites look crazy.  They aren't really Christians.


If rape marriage is no longer moral to you then please be consistent and stop opposing gay marriage. If you're going to throw the Old Testament out with yesterday's garbage...

----------


## Cabal

So, I am married to everyone I've ever had sex with? Does this just apply to traditional intercourse, or oral sex too? I need to figure out how many wives I have.

----------


## kathy88

I'm dumber for having read this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  Again your asking me questions I'm still working through on a Biblical level.  I'm not sure.
> 
> One thing that could sway me is if it could be shown that a church or a state ever validated marriage in the New Testament.


At the risk of ticking some people off... what's your position on this ATM?  I know you didn't know four months ago, do you still not know?  I know Chris Duncan refused to answer my questions about this doctrine because he considered me not worth his time after he "figured out I was unregenerate" so I wasn't actually able to get any useful info on this.  Ultimately I still kind of think the OTC position on this issue is crazy, and somewhat legalistic, but I'm curious what your thoughts on it are right now.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> You know, I hadn't thought of that.  If you've lusted you've already committed adultery.  Since adultery is having sex, you've already have had sex and hence you are already married.


So... I'm biblically married to my 5th grade reading teacher?  I don't even remember her name, but she was blonde and usually wore floral print sundresses.  She was TOTALLY HOT!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So... I'm biblically married to my 5th grade reading teacher?  I don't even remember her name, but she was blonde and usually wore floral print sundresses.  She was TOTALLY HOT!


Oh great

BTW: That was a joke.  Nobody believes that lust creates marriage.  Its a straw man of an argument from a fringe christian (I use the term "christian" loosely here, hence the lower case) website that sex creates a marriage union in the eyes of God.  Sola went back and forth between arguing their position and saying that he didn't know.  Some people wrongly tried to pin Sola with it and act like he focused on the issue way more than he actually did, but I'm still curious where he stands after having four months to (potentially) consider it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So... I'm biblically married to my 5th grade reading teacher?  I don't even remember her name, but she was blonde and usually wore floral print sundresses.  She was TOTALLY HOT!


I'm married to my 3rd grade teacher!   I hope she looks the same now...One stunning, leggy blonde I'll never forget. ETA:

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK... HB, you do realize the "lust = marriage" thing was a strawman that nobody actually believes, right?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> OK... HB, you do realize the "lust = marriage" thing was a strawman that nobody actually believes, right?


D00d, I'm having lolz on teh interwebz.  Untangle ur panties, plz.

----------


## Terry1

A real and true marriage in God can only be one that is of a spiritual nature.  God creates a marriage by two people who spiritually agree as one flesh together.  It is not sex that or anything physical that consummates a marriage, it is all spiritual under the New Covenant of faith.  God illustrates this for us here:

Mark 10:
8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Because any two people can run down to the court house and obtain a license to marry and have sex together, this does not make a marriage that God that joined together, it is nothing more than a worldly marriage that God had nothing to do with.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> D00d, I'm having lolz on teh interwebz.  Untangle ur panties, plz.


Me too.  I was having a little fun!

----------


## Carson

Maybe we are confusing *REALITY* with *SYMBOLISM*?

Maybe there are no bastards except symbolically?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Maybe we are confusing *REALITY* with *SYMBOLISM*?
> 
> Maybe there are no bastards except symbolically?


  Mind.  Blown.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Wow... you people need to get out more...

----------


## Christian Liberty

bump.  SF?

----------


## jllundqu

I guess I'm married to more than a dozen women....

Wait... I'm a polygamist?????   Who knew??

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> bump.  SF?


Why don't you pm him, and let this thread croak.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why don't you pm him, and let this thread croak.


Because his PM box is full.




> I guess I'm married to more than a dozen women....
> 
> Wait... I'm a polygamist?????   Who knew??


Well, I don't believe this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Further reading on this view :
> 
> *What Constitutes Marriage*
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm
> 
> 
> Marc Carpenter always responds to his email if you have questions, I'd ask him.


I'm bumping this thread on the grounds that the author of the above posted article is now an RPF member.

agrammatos, if you can answer the questions that have been asked on this thread, I'd appreciate it.

----------


## RJB

For crying out loud!!!  God had blessed me with the fortune not to have seen this thread!!! 

UNTIL NOW!!!

WTF for the bump!?!?  My IQ suffered!!!

When FF and SF ride in, there goes the neighborhood.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For crying out loud!!!  God had blessed me with the fortune not to have seen this thread!!! 
> 
> UNTIL NOW!!!
> 
> WTF for the bump!?!?  My IQ suffered!!!
> 
> When FF and SF ride in, there goes the neighborhood.


I bumped it because the author of the article recently joined the forum.

I do NOT agree with this.  SF does not know if he agrees with it.  

Why are you even posting in this thread if you obviously aren't interested in it?

----------


## eduardo89

> I bumped it because the author of the article recently joined the forum.


The author is a moron.




> The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living.


I want to -rep him.

----------


## moostraks

> The author is a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to -rep him.


Shall be interesting to see by what measure this loveless crowd is judged by with theology such as this. I suppose children are wedded to their sexual abusers as well?

----------


## RJB

> I bumped it because the author of the article recently joined the forum.
> 
> I do NOT agree with this.  SF does not know if he agrees with it.  
> 
> Why are you even posting in this thread if you obviously aren't interested in it?


3 OF YOU!!!  There went the neighborhood.

The religion section has become the forum equivalent of a ghetto.  Maybe admin can apply for a government forum renewal grant.

As to why I'm posting, meh, why do you post irrelevancies in threads on Orthodox, Catholic, Arminian and other topics that you know little about?

----------


## RJB

> I want to -rep him.


Here's your chance:   http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5425887

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The author is a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to -rep him.


The new member "agrammatos" is the author of this article.  So you actually can neg rep him if you feel like it.




> Shall be interesting to see by what measure this loveless crowd is judged by with theology such as this. I suppose children are wedded to their sexual abusers as well?


According to Chris Duncan, yes.

I think this is absurd, and this point is one of my biggest issues with this theology.  Not just because its horrific that a child would have to stay celibate for the rest of their lives because they were raped (Which is bad enough) you get a situation where a person potentially doesn't even remember they were sexually abused as a child and then gets married to someone else later in life, making them unknowingly "adulterers."

----------


## fr33

SO... is it just the protestants that justify raping for wives or just a small percentage of them? 

It's an important question to me because I've recently moved from a predominately catholic area to a location that is predominately protestant.. I already know they don't like my drinking but I must know if my wife is in danger from these crazy $#@!s. The catholics didn't have a problem with my drinking or my wife. I don't dare tell either group that I'm an atheist. That would be putting my life in their hands. Such is living within the bible belt. The crazies still knock on my door just as much as they did in the old house. Sectarian 101. Know the BS your neighbors are up too. I could never imagine knocking on peoples' doors to promote my opinions but then again mine aren't divinely inspired.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Its more like making Carpenterites look crazy.  .


I once had carpenter ants in this house we rented.  I never told the landlord.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

What da fuq are you people talkin' about?

lol

----------


## agrammatos

> The new member "agrammatos" is the author of this article.  So you actually can neg rep him if you feel like it.
> 
> According to Chris Duncan, yes.
> 
> I think this is absurd, and this point is one of my biggest issues with this theology.  Not just because its horrific that a child would have to stay celibate for the rest of their lives because they were raped (Which is bad enough) you get a situation where a person potentially doesn't even remember they were sexually abused as a child and then gets married to someone else later in life, making them unknowingly "adulterers."


FreedomFanatic (David Cooke) does not have a clue and does not accurately represent the Biblical teaching on what constitutes marriage:

1 Corinthians 6:15-16 says, 


> “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Then taking the members of Christ, shall I make them members of a harlot? Let it not be! Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, The two shall be into one flesh.”


Paul references Genesis 2:24. Here are some questions to consider:





> (a) Have the harlot and the one being joined to the harlot become one body, one flesh?
> (b) Has the cleaving made them one flesh?
> (c) Is the cleaving and becoming one flesh a marriage to a wife?
> (d) If the answer to (c) is “no,” then why did Paul use Genesis 2:24 to prove his point?

----------


## agrammatos

> SO... is it just the protestants that justify raping for wives or just a small percentage of them? 
> 
> It's an important question to me because I've recently moved from a predominately catholic area to a location that is predominately protestant.. I already know they don't like my drinking but I must know if my wife is in danger from these crazy $#@!s. The catholics didn't have a problem with my drinking or my wife. I don't dare tell either group that I'm an atheist. That would be putting my life in their hands. Such is living within the bible belt. The crazies still knock on my door just as much as they did in the old house. Sectarian 101. Know the BS your neighbors are up too. I could never imagine knocking on peoples' doors to promote my opinions but then again mine aren't divinely inspired.


Nothing that I've written justifies the rape of anyone. And if you are an atheist, then you have no moral basis or standard to make objections against anything.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nothing that I've written justifies the rape of anyone. And if you are an atheist, then you have no moral basis or standard to make objections against anything.


I've explained both of these things to Fr33 before, but he is very slow witted and he likes to keep repeating his lines for emotional effect.  It's best to ignore that one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> FreedomFanatic (David Cooke) does not have a clue and does not accurately represent the Biblical teaching on what constitutes marriage:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 says, 
> 
> Paul references Genesis 2:24. Here are some questions to consider:


I don't see how this can be refuted.

----------


## Terry1

Where is Mr. Chris Duncan.  Show yourself sir and lets discuss this because I believe that you've missed the mark with regard to what the Apostle Paul teaches us on the principles of marriage under the New Covenant of Faith.

The husband and wife of the Old Testament teachings under the Mosaic Law died on that cross with Jesus.  The Apostle Paul under the New Covenant of Faith calls us all to peace with regard to the husband and wife of the New Covenant as referenced here:


*1 Corinthians 7:
13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.  14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.*  *15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.  16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
*

Paul is telling you here, that if it's possible to remain with the husband or wife in order to lead them to salvation, if it's not possible then, they are not in bondage to remain in such cases and are free to leave because we are called to peace with one another.  There is no more condemnation for the divorced man or woman under the new covenant of Christ because as Paul said, "we are called to peace with one another".  

The husband and wife that were bound to one another under the Old Mosaic Law are FREE under the New Covenant of Faith in Jesus Christ.  Our Lord would never bind a husband or wife spiritually to another that is an abusive unbeliever.  Some of these men and women suffer horribly at the hands of abusive unbelieving spouses and some are brutally tortured by them.  Leave them! If the Lord has prompted your heart to do so--you are not bound to them and to continue living in torment.  But--seek God and Lords instruction on this in prayer before one does this because we called to remain with them if they are peaceful and non abusive.

A true marriage in the Lord is spiritual and the Lord said "whom He hath joined together, no man can divide or put asunder".

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You're married to her and her poop is your kids which you must love and take care of.


LOLOLOLOL

thread winner.

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## RJB

I suggest listening to tune as you read this thread.

----------


## Terry1

A true marriage in Christ is spiritual not carnal.  The man and the woman are joint heirs in Christ now under the New Covenant of Faith as referenced here:

*Romans 8:17 
and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.*

*The word tells us here in 1 Corinthians 11: 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.*

Both the man and the woman have their respective duties to perform, each equal in importance regarding how a Godly union between a man and woman should function and with regard to each of their responsibilities within the home and family.  Just as the woman should respect and honor her husband so should the husband respect and honor his wife because they are brought together in a spiritual relationship and union between themselves and the Lord.  They are to work together to bring about a Godly family unit--both having responsibilities equal in importance.  

Whatever that may be in todays world with regard to what the woman or man must do, the importance is working together in love to support a Godly marriage, life and family.  If they can not do this peacefully and without abuse, then they are called to peace and are not in bondage to remain, but are called to remain if they are peaceful with one another.

----------


## agrammatos

> i remember getting my first boner in the 4th grade.  I was walking to school, and the lovely 'Wendy' was walking down her street about to turn and walk along with me. holy mackerel. 3rd grade with bigger boobs than a lot of 6th-graders. 
> 
> i'm gonna have to look her up and tell her the good news (that I'm pretty sure we're married)


I can tell you really take seriously the seriousness of God's judgment concerning those who defile the marriage bed:




> "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers" (Hebrews 13:4).


I don't expect you to draw (nor care about) the connection, but just so we're clear: It is people just like you that God will judge. 

Terry1 wrote:




> Paul is telling you here, that if it's possible to remain with the husband or wife in order to lead them to salvation, if it's not possible then, they are not in bondage to remain in such cases and are free to leave because we are called to peace with one another. There is no more condemnation for the divorced man or woman under the new covenant of Christ because as Paul said, "we are called to peace with one another". 
> 
> 
> The husband and wife that were bound to one another under the Old Mosaic Law are FREE under the New Covenant of Faith in Jesus Christ. Our Lord would never bind a husband or wife spiritually to another that is an abusive unbeliever. Some of these men and women suffer horribly at the hands of abusive unbelieving spouses and some are brutally tortured by them. Leave them! If the Lord has prompted your heart to do so--you are not bound to them and to continue living in torment. But--seek God and Lords instruction on this in prayer before one does this because we called to remain with them if they are peaceful and non abusive.
> 
> 
> A true marriage in the Lord is spiritual and the Lord said "whom He hath joined together, no man can divide or put asunder".


OF COURSE the spouse in an abusive marriage may leave and be separated. That is not the issue. "... but if indeed she is separated, remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the husband" (1 Corinthians 7:11). It would be insane for a woman to attempt to reconcile with a characteristically violent and abusive husband. But unless this bully of a husband dies (Romans 7:2-3) she is to, as the apostle Paul put it, "remain unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:11).

----------


## Terry1

Many people who believe that a piece of paper signed and sealed is a true marriage in Christ, it is not.  An unbelieving spouse can leave that marriage *spiritually* in their hearts and minds without ever having to walk out of that physical door.  We are free under the New Covenant of faith and not under the condemnation of the Old Law any longer--that died with Jesus on the cross.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I can tell you really take seriously the seriousness of God's judgment concerning those who defile the marriage bed


i thought we were having some lolz here, no?  my bad

dood, what you do in your bed is of sooooooooooo little concern to me, i can barely describe it.

Nukes about to blow up half the Middle East?  that's a concern.




> I don't expect you to draw (nor care about) the connection, but just so we're clear: It is people just like you that God will judge.


ooooohhhhhh..... 10-post agrammatos is throwing down here on RPF.

col. jessup: "ARE WE CLEAR??!!!!!!"
smug smile realizes at that moment there is a large hole in the armor: "crystal"

----------


## Terry1

> I can tell you really take seriously the seriousness of God's judgment concerning those who defile the marriage bed.


What you're not seeing is that Paul was speaking to the people of that time with regard to their traditions and practices, but Paul also goes on to explain that we are called to peace with one another as joint heirs in Christ.  

A true marriage is not by tradition, ritual or practice under the New Covenant---that is the Old Mosaic Law husband and wife that died on the cross with the Lord.  We are no longer held in bondage to that law.  

It's the Lord that spiritually binds a marriage---not a piece of paper.  Any two people can get married today in this world--men with men, women with women.  People are even marrying their pets.  These are not marriages in Christ--they are worldly marriages and perverted according to God and His word.
Therefore---realizing then what constitutes a true marriage in Christ, then leads you to understand that spiritually no one is bound to another that God has not Himself joined together.  They were already spiritually separated before they were joined together carnally by a license and worldly document.






> I don't expect you to draw (nor care about) the connection, but just so we're clear: It is people just like you that God will judge. 
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE the spouse in an abusive marriage may leave and be separated. That is not the issue. "... but if indeed she is separated, remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the husband" (1 Corinthians 7:11). It would be insane for a woman to attempt to reconcile with a characteristically violent and abusive husband. But unless this bully of a husband dies (Romans 7:2-3) she is to, as the apostle Paul put it, "remain unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:11).


You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth attempting to say that it's a sin if they separate before one dies and then say it's not if one's abusive to the other.  This does not reconcile with what Paul is actually saying.  They were never spiritually joined by God in the first place--hence it was never a true marriage.  All it ever amounted to was sex.

*Mark 10: 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.*

God is telling you here that a true marriage spiritually and of Him can not be separated by anyone because they are spiritually bound as one flesh---not carnal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Terry1, as usual you have no idea what is going on.  Go to the first page of this thread and read the links so you can know what the position is.

----------


## agrammatos

> Many people who believe that a piece of paper signed and sealed is a true marriage in Christ, it is not.  An unbelieving spouse can leave that marriage *spiritually* in their hearts and minds without ever having to walk out of that physical door.  We are free under the New Covenant of faith and not under the condemnation of the Old Law any longer--that died with Jesus on the cross.


A person is free to form a culturally recognized marriage or one that is recognized by society or the state (or whatever or whomever else). The point is that NONE of these things play a part in what constitutes a marriage. The bible clearly teaches that it is sex ALONE that constitutes or commences a marriage (this is NOT saying that ALL marriage unions are pleasing to God, nor is it saying that marriage once began does not include MANY other things):




> P1 Sex alone makes people “one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16).
> P2 “One flesh” is the marriage union (Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24).
> C1 Therefore, sex alone is the marriage union.


Refute the logic.

----------


## Terry1

> A person is free to form a culturally recognized marriage or one that is recognized by society or the state (or whatever or whomever else). The point is that NONE of these things play a part in what constitutes a marriage. The bible clearly teaches that it is sex ALONE that constitutes or commences a marriage (this is NOT saying that ALL marriage unions are pleasing to God, nor is it saying that marriage once began does not include MANY other things):
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the logic.


Under the New Covenant of Faith--we either live by the Spiritual Law of God or we live by the condemnation of the Old Law of traditions, rituals and practice.  You can't support both and be correct.  You're either living by grace through faith or you're living under the curse of the Old Law.  You choose.

A house divided can not stand.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Under the New Covenant of Faith--we either live by the Spiritual Law of God or we live by the condemnation of the Old Law of traditions, rituals and practice.  You can't support both and be correct.  You're either living by grace through faith or you're living under the curse of the Old Law.  You choose.
> 
> A house divided can not stand.


Huh?

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1, as usual you have no idea what is going on.  Go to the first page of this thread and read the links so you can know what the position is.


If you would only listen to that jackass you ride blind while waving your big palm leaf instead of attempting to jab those spurs of yours in his side to make him go---you'd understand that the jackass is trying to save you from the cliff ahead.

----------


## agrammatos

> Under the New Covenant of Faith--we either live by the Spiritual Law of God or we live by the condemnation of the Old Law of traditions, rituals and practice.  You can't support both and be correct.  You're either living by grace through faith or you're living under the curse of the Old Law.  You choose.
> 
> A house divided can not stand.



Jesus said in Matthew 5:32 that 


> "Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery."


Paul states in Romans 7:2-3: 


> "For the married woman was bound by Law to the living husband; but if the husband dies, she is set free from the Law of the husband. So then, if the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if the husband dies, she is free from the Law, so as for her not to be an adulteress by becoming another man's."



I am not understanding your position, Terry1. Are Matthew 5:32 and Romans 7:2-3 offending parts of this "house divided"? Are you trying to state in some sort of cryptic fashion that the "New Covenant of Faith" and the "Spiritual Law of God" sanctifies adulterous marriages? What exactly are you trying to say? Please state it much differently that you have previously for clarity's sake.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Under the New Covenant of Faith--we either live by the Spiritual Law of God or we live by the condemnation of the Old Law of traditions, rituals and practice.  You can't support both and be correct.  You're either living by grace through faith or you're living under the curse of the Old Law.  You choose.
> 
> A house divided can not stand.


Didn't you say in another thread that dispensationalism was wrong?  Are saying there is a new set of laws in the New Covenant that Christians must adhere to in order to be saved?  This is Biblical?  How?

----------


## eduardo89

> Didn't you say in another thread that dispensationalism was wrong?  Are saying there is a new set of laws in the New Covenant that Christians must adhere to in order to be saved?  This is Biblical?  How?


It's as biblical as sex creating the marital union.

----------


## Terry1

> Didn't you say in another thread that dispensationalism was wrong?  Are saying there is a new set of laws in the New Covenant that Christians must adhere to in order to be saved?  This is Biblical?  How?


Sometimes I wonder about you.  Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I say or are you just this blind?  

God's word tells us that the entire word of God is to be used for reproof and instruction, but that does not mean that we're supposed to live under the curse of the old law by practicing rituals and traditions in order to obtain righteousness by them or condemn anyone else who doesn't practice the curse of that law in their daily spiritual lives.

----------


## RJB

> Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I say or are you just this blind?


He does that A LOT.

Engaging him sometimes gives me the feeling that I'm the straightman in a Monty Python skit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sometimes I wonder about you.  Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I say or are you just this blind?  
> 
> God's word tells us that the entire word of God is to be used for reproof and instruction, but that does not mean that we're supposed to live under the curse of the old law by practicing rituals and traditions in order to obtain righteousness by them or condemn anyone else who doesn't practice the curse of that law in their daily spiritual lives.


What are you talking about?  Are there new laws in the New Covenant that Christians must adhere to for salvation?

----------


## RJB

> Sometimes I wonder about you..


Did you pay him for the 5 minutes?

----------


## eduardo89

> Sometimes I wonder about you.  Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I say or are you just this blind?


It's the former. He has a history of lying and deceiving to appear to have won the debate. Sometimes he sinks so low as to post fake quotes and attribute them to a member of your faith to try and win.

----------


## Terry1

> It's the former. He has a history of lying and deceiving to appear to have won the debate. Sometimes he sinks so low as to post fake quotes and attribute them to a member of your faith to try and win.


Yeah, I think it's a bit of both misrepresenting others on purpose and being blind too.  One causes the other in Sola.   I've already been a victim of his strawman attacks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, I think it's a bit of both misrepresenting others on purpose and being blind too.  One causes the other in Sola.   I've already been a victim of his strawman attacks.


Okay Terry1.   I do not want to misrepresent you.  Let me understand where you are coming from.

Are you saying that there are new laws in the New Covenant that a person must follow to be saved?

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus said in Matthew 5:32 that 
> 
> Paul states in Romans 7:2-3: 
> 
> 
> I am not understanding your position, Terry1. Are Matthew 5:32 and Romans 7:2-3 offending parts of this "house divided"? Are you trying to state in some sort of cryptic fashion that the "New Covenant of Faith" and the "Spiritual Law of God" sanctifies adulterous marriages? What exactly are you trying to say? Please state it much differently that you have previously for clarity's sake.


You have to reconcile what Paul is telling you here with the rest of scripture that speaks about marriage, separation and reconciliation.  Paul distinguishes between these and calls everyone to peace.  

Under the New Covenant of faith---sin is sin.  Sex outside of marriage is said to be a sin, but then spiritually---you have to understand what constitutes a "true and spiritual marriage between two believers.  So then sex is nothing more than a sin to those whom are being spiritually convicted of that sin and does not constitute a true marriage in Christ.  What is sin to one---may not be a sin to another spiritually because God works in the minds and hearts of people on an individual basis.  

There were many biblical characters that had sex outside of marriage in those days.  There were many who still believed in having more than one wife too.  Now under the New Covenant, we are all called to be ministers of the Gospel and all called to have just one wife or one husband.  We are also instructed on what constitute a true marriage in God and what does not.

  Realizing that Paul and the others were addressing people and the traditions they lived by at that time.  Paul adheared and taught traditions still in his message to the lost in order to win souls for Christ, not that he/himself actually practiced them.  Paul respected their traditions and did not violate them in order to gain their trust and attention to the true message of Christ.

Paul says divorce is always wrong though sometimes inevitable because of the destructive power of sin. 

*The wife should not leave her husband.  The word leave (chorizo), means to separate or divide.  Send his wife away (aphiemi) means the same.*

So then what does Mark 10 say about that here:

* 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.*

What is that saying then?  Those who separate or divide were never married in Christ and was not a marriage of the Lord to begin with.  All it ever was, is sex between two people who should have never been together in the first place and separation was inevitable.

Under the New Covenant of Faith/Christ---we now live our own Spiritual convictions and preach Christ--always.  There is no condemnation for those who abide in Christ.

So you can not say that it's not a sin to leave an abusive brutal spouse and then turn right around and condemn a husband or wife for leaving them.  You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to say that a house divided can stand. 

So if that person who left the brutal abusive spouse divorces them on a worldly piece of paper and the Lord then joins them with another who is a believer---then that is a spiritual marriage that no man can separate or divide.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Under the New Covenant of Faith/Christ---we now live our own Spiritual convictions and preach Christ--always.  There is no condemnation for those who abide in Christ.


In the New Covenant we "live out our own spiritual convictions"???

Why did Paul condemn the Galatian heretics?  They were just living out their own spiritual convictions, right?

----------


## Terry1

> In the New Covenant we "live out our own spiritual convictions"???
> 
> Why did Paul condemn the Galatian heretics?  They were just living out their own spiritual convictions, right?


It's no surprise that you don't understand this concept either because you don't believe in walking in the spirit and obeying that which the spirit convicts you of through your repentance.  You don't believe in repentance as an action on the part of the believer.  You believe it's an auto response because God gave you the gift of faith.  I can only assume that your's is dead already simply by what you've stated that you believe.

----------


## Terry1

> Jesus said in Matthew 5:32 that 
> 
> Paul states in Romans 7:2-3: 
> 
> 
> I am not understanding your position, Terry1. Are Matthew 5:32 and Romans 7:2-3 offending parts of this "house divided"? Are you trying to state in some sort of cryptic fashion that the "New Covenant of Faith" and the "Spiritual Law of God" sanctifies adulterous marriages? What exactly are you trying to say? Please state it much differently that you have previously for clarity's sake.


Another thing you are attempting to do here is justify something spiritually by use of the traditions and rituals of mankind as in the "marriage certificate" and "license".  This does not justify a true marriage nor constitute that those two people represent a spiritual wife or husband in the Lord.

This is attempting to justify what is of God by using the carnal traditions of mankind.  That is what's meant by "a house divided can not stand".  No more than one who is of the Spirit of the Lord is able to remain in an unspiritual relationship with another.  God said they can not stand together and will inevitably separate because they are like oil and water and they don't mix.  Paul encourages them to try, but then tells you that we are called to peace because the one sanctifies the other through their own belief. No one is bound to a union such as this in the Lord. It's up to them if they choose to remain or not and are not under condemnation if they choose to leave or even be rejoined with a believer.  They are free and they are forgiven in Christ.

----------


## Terry1

A true marriage is a spiritual commitment to the Lord between two people.  Believers in all truth don't need a "marriage certificate or even a license.  Those are worldly objects that mean nothing spiritually.

Two people that aren't meant to be together can have preachers sprinkle them, dunk them, plead the blood of Jesus over them and read aloud biblical words in a ceremony to them, but if they weren't meant to be together in the Lord---that carnal worldly marriage will fail inevitably.

Many people who don't believe in God get married in churches all day long---it doesn't mean that God has joined them together, it means they joined themselves together.  All they're doing is having consensual sex together thinking it's a marriage.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm not even saying this is necessarily my view...but it does make me think (and it makes all of you think too).


The only thing it makes me think is that this Marc person has no concept of what marriage actually is and what it means to be married.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The only thing it makes me think is that this Marc person has no concept of what marriage actually is and what it means to be married.


Since I've posted that, I have become even more sure that this is the Biblical position. 

How do you refute this?



> P1 Sex alone makes people one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:16).
> P2 One flesh is the marriage union (Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24).
> C1 Therefore, sex alone is the marriage union.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Since I've posted that, I have become even more sure that this is the Biblical position. 
> 
> How do you refute this?


Would not the sin of adultery be covered by Christ's blood for the regenerate?   Now, would the regenerate, whom God had led to repentance, live in celibacy, for the rest of their lives, to avoid adultery?

----------


## Brett85

So if an older couple gets married for the sake of companionship but don't have sex, are they not married?

----------


## Terry1

> So if an older couple gets married for the sake of companionship but don't have sex, are they not married?


If they're both believers with a spiritual relationship in Christ together, they really don't need a marriage certificate to prove to God they're of one flesh together.  If they need the marriage certificate for legal reasons, then that's up to them.

If they're not believers then they're just as bad off not believing as they are having sex outside of marriage then.  They're just living in sin either way.

----------


## Brett85

> If they're both believers with a spiritual relationship in Christ together, they really don't need a marriage certificate to prove to God they're of one flesh together.  If they need the marriage certificate for legal reasons, then that's up to them.


I don't agree with that entirely.  I think that in order to be married, a couple at least needs to say their vows to each other with at least one witness.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't agree with that entirely.  I think that in order to be married, a couple at least needs to say their vows to each other with at least one witness.


Everyone's entitled to live by their own convictions and should.  What might be a sin to one may not be to another.  It just depends on where that person is within their own personal relationship with the Lord.

----------


## Brett85

> Everyone's entitled to live by their own convictions and should.  What might be a sin to one may not be to another.  It just depends on where that person is within their own personal relationship with the Lord.


That's true to some extent, although there are definitely certain things that the Bible says are wrong for everyone.

----------


## Terry1

> That's true to some extent, although there are definitely certain things that the Bible says are wrong for everyone.


That's true too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FreedomFanatic (David Cooke) does not have a clue and does not accurately represent the Biblical teaching on what constitutes marriage:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 says, 
> 
> Paul references Genesis 2:24. Here are some questions to consider:


I don't think you understood my question, because I was neither articulating or trying to refute your position on this issue.  I was simply posing a question, one that I assume you either did not understand or cannot answer.

Let's try this again in your bullet point format.

1. One year old child is raped, does not remember the experience, nor is he/she ever told that he/she was raped

2. One year old child grow up and reads outsidethecamp.org, believes everything that he reads there, and is regenerated.

3. This now grown man/woman, believing he/she is a virgin (as this person has never been told they were raped as a child) has sexual intercourse with another regenerate person who believes every proposition on Outsidethecamp.  Both parties believe they are virgins.

4. ... what happens?  There's obviously (based on OTC's marriage theology) an adulterous relationship going on here.  Thus, by the Biblical argument that adulterers cannot enter heaven, these people should both be unregenerate.  Yet, because they believe the gospel, they should be regenerate.

So... are the people in our scenario (People who believe the same gospel you do, believe the same theology on marriage that you do, but are unknowingly living in adultery) regenerate or unregenerate?  Or is this scenario providentially impossible?




> Nothing that I've written justifies the rape of anyone. And if you are an atheist, then you have no moral basis or standard to make objections against anything.


OK, this is one point I will give you.  I agree with you on both of those points.



> I don't see how this can be refuted.


John 4:16-18

Malachi 2:14 (The verse defines marriage as being "by covenant" not "by sexual intercourse."






> I can tell you really take seriously the seriousness of God's judgment concerning those who defile the marriage bed:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to draw (nor care about) the connection, but just so we're clear: It is people just like you that God will judge. 
> 
> Terry1 wrote:
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so how does your "of course" work with 1 Corinthians 7:5.




> A person is free to form a culturally recognized marriage or one that is recognized by society or the state (or whatever or whomever else). The point is that NONE of these things play a part in what constitutes a marriage. The bible clearly teaches that it is sex ALONE that constitutes or commences a marriage (this is NOT saying that ALL marriage unions are pleasing to God, nor is it saying that marriage once began does not include MANY other things):
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the logic.


I provided two verses above.  The presumption that you are making is that, because sex forms a one-flesh union, and marriage is a one flesh union, that sex = marriage.  But this is not necessarily the case, there can be other (illegitimate, of course) sexual unions that are not marriages.  

In addition to the two above verses:

For Tamar (2 Samuel 13) to demand her brother marry her before having sex with her would make no sense if sex alone created a marriage bond.

Its literally impossible for an unmarried person to live morally, even if they are regenerate, according to the view presented at OTC (Sex alone making marriage is part of this, but not all of it.)  You guys believe that sex alone creates a marital union, yet it is sinful to be attracted to anyone other than your wife (Even if you are unmarried.)  Thus, for an unmarried virgin not to be in sin, they cannot be attracted to their partner in any way until they have sex with them.  Is this a correct interpretation of the OTC position?




> It's as biblical as sex creating the marital union.


Let's see some scripture here. 




> Since I've posted that, I have become even more sure that this is the Biblical position. 
> 
> How do you refute this?


See my above points.




> So if an older couple gets married for the sake of companionship but don't have sex, are they not married?


This is impossible according to OTC.  Even worse, they believe that its acceptable for those in an adulterous union to live together as long as they don't have sex (So much for "moral" people)



> That's true to some extent, although there are definitely certain things that the Bible says are wrong for everyone.


Yes, I agree, and this is a distinction that I make all the time.  Eating meat being sacrificed to idols is the Biblical example.  I'm sure there are numerous others.  There are also things that are wrong for everyone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can tell you really take seriously the seriousness of God's judgment concerning those who defile the marriage bed:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to draw (nor care about) the connection, but just so we're clear: It is people just like you that God will judge. 
> 
> Terry1 wrote:


Hebrews 4:13 proves that fornication is a different thing than adultery, and that sex therefore cannot = marriage.

I believe that's at least three Bible passages that refute this doctrine.

----------


## RJB

I just wanted to apologize to FF.  I misunderstood where he was coming from in this thread.

----------


## Brett85

Is there going to be sex in heaven?

----------


## Terry1

> Is there going to be sex in heaven?



I don't believe so, after all, what need would there be since everyone there will live eternally.  God has a number in mind and when we reach that number--heaven will be fulfilled, just my opinion anyway.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't believe so, after all, what need would there be since everyone there will live eternally.  God has a number in mind and when we reach that number--heaven will be fulfilled, just my opinion anyway.


Then I would hope that God would take our hormones and our sex drive away from us.  Otherwise, it seems live heaven would be hell.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just wanted to apologize to FF.  I misunderstood where he was coming from in this thread.


I know I told you in PM, but just so its on the record, its cool.  I can definitely see why this topic could be annoying and or aggravating.  It just so happens that I'm interested in it.  If for no other reason, it got me looking through the scriptures for evidence of things I thought were givens.  I wasn't even really aware of Micah 2:14 until I looked up John 4:18 in my ESV study Bible.  And I'm genuinely interested in the responses of those that take the OTC position to some of the logical dilemmas it creates.



> Is there going to be sex in heaven?


Well, the Bible says that there won't be marriage, so I assume there won't be sex either.




> Then I would hope that God would take our hormones and our sex drive away from us.  Otherwise, it seems live heaven would be hell.


Certainly yes.  Its not going to be like we want it but can't have it, which would indeed be an imperfect situation at best.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, the Bible says that there won't be marriage, so I assume there won't be sex either.


But how do we know whether there will be the same rules in heaven as there are on earth?  The only reason why it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage is because God says that it's a sin, so if we got to heaven and God said that the rules are now different and sex outside of marriage is permitted, then it wouldn't be a sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But how do we know whether there will be the same rules in heaven as there are on earth?  The only reason why it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage is because God says that it's a sin, so if we got to heaven and God said that the rules are now different and sex outside of marriage is permitted, then it wouldn't be a sin.


Genesis 2:24 (which clearly implies monogamy) was written before the Fall of Man, so I'd think it would still be in effect.

That said, I suppose its POSSIBLE.  I don't think its likely.  I doubt we'd need it, since we'd be in the presence of Christ himself.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread, however.  This thread is about what creates a marital union, and the Bible clearly teaches that there is no marriage in heaven.

----------


## agrammatos

> I don't think you understood my question, because I was neither articulating or trying to refute your position on this issue.  I was simply posing a question, one that I assume you either did not understand or cannot answer.
> 
> Let's try this again in your bullet point format.
> 
> 1. One year old child is raped, does not remember the experience, nor is he/she ever told that he/she was raped
> 
> 2. One year old child grow up and reads outsidethecamp.org, believes everything that he reads there, and is regenerated.
> 
> 3. This now grown man/woman, believing he/she is a virgin (as this person has never been told they were raped as a child) has sexual intercourse with another regenerate person who believes every proposition on Outsidethecamp.  Both parties believe they are virgins.
> ...


All your questions have answers. But I would like you to answer every single one (a, b, c, and d) of these questions pertaining to 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, first:




> (a) Have the harlot and the one being joined to the harlot become one body, one flesh?
> (b) Has the cleaving made them one flesh?
> (c) Is the cleaving and becoming one flesh a marriage to a wife?
> (d) If the answer to (c) is “no,” then why did Paul use Genesis 2:24 to prove his point?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> All your questions have answers. But I would like you to answer every single one (a, b, c, and d) of these questions pertaining to 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, first:


I don't really know for sure, and I think I addressed this to the best of my ability.  Micah 2:14 says that marriage is formed by COVENANT, not sexual intercourse.  John 4:18 clearly shows a woman "being with" a man (clearly implying sex) that she is not married to.  Hebrews 4:13 addresses adultery and fornication as separate sins.  And I think its a massive leap in logic to assume that since marriage is a one-flesh union, and that sexual intercourse is a one-flesh union, that sexual intercourse is marriage.  It implies that all one-flesh unions are the same.  But the passages I mention above discredit this idea.

So, to give quick, at a glance answers:

a: yes

b: yes

c: no

d: Paul is showing that being with a harlot is a serious matter, and a violation of God's intent for a one-flesh union.  This does not mean that the one flesh union actually is marriage.

----------


## agrammatos

> Hebrews 4:13 proves that fornication is a different thing than adultery, and that sex therefore cannot = marriage.
> 
> I believe that's at least three Bible passages that refute this doctrine.


This is all I have time to write for now. It's Hebrews 13:4 (not 4:13) and that conclusion does not come even close to following from those premises. Blatant _non sequitur_.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hebrews 4:13 proves that fornication is a different thing than adultery, and that sex therefore cannot = marriage.
> 
> I believe that's at least three Bible passages that refute this doctrine.


Hebrews 13:4




> Hebrews 13:4 NIV
> 
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


How does it refute the position?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hebrews 13:4
> 
> 
> 
> How does it refute the position?


I just checked some different translations.  My ESV agrees with the NIV's translation, but the NKJV and NASB agree with each other against the NIV and ESV.  I couldn't find the "literal version" on Biblegateway.com, which is disappointing as I know this is the version the OTC people use.  Different versions are here: http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013:4

Ultimately, this depends on what words are correct here.  If the translations that list "fornicators and adulterers" are correct, that disproves the OTC position right there.  Fornication is illicit sex between married people, while adultery is illicit sex between at least one married person and another person.  Two separate things.  But, fornication doesn't really exist in  the OTC paradigm, because OTC believes that sex = marriage.  So, a sexual act is either forming a legitimate marital union, or its adultery.  A listing of "fornication" would prove that there is such a thing, and that its distinct from adultery.

On the other hand, if it simply says "sexual immorality and adultery" this does not disprove the OTC position.  There are plenty of illicit acts, such as watching porn, masturbating, reading sexually explicit material, etc. that would fall under "sexual immorality" without being literal adultery.  But those things wouldn't be "fornication", which can only actually be committed if two unmarried people can illegitimately have sex, which is impossible if sex = marriage.

Does anyone know any Greek that can shed some light here?  I don't.

----------


## eduardo89

Do the OTC heretics also consider sex between siblings or parent/child to be marriage?

----------


## eduardo89

> Does anyone know any Greek that can shed some light here?  I don't.


TER's mother tongue is Greek.

----------


## Brett85

> Genesis 2:24 (which clearly implies monogamy) was written before the Fall of Man, so I'd think it would still be in effect.


There was quite a bit of polygamy in the Bible.  Solomon had over 100 wives.

----------


## eduardo89

> There was quite a bit of polygamy in the Bible.  Solomon had over 100 wives.


How'd that end up for him?

----------


## Brett85

> How'd that end up for him?


Not very good.  It was still something that God allowed though, for whatever reason.  Although it wasn't part of his original plan.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do the OTC heretics also consider sex between siblings or parent/child to be marriage?


Haha.... that's a good one.  What about homosexual sex or sex with animals?  Do these also count?  If not, why not?




> TER's mother tongue is Greek.


TER: any thoughts here?




> Not very good.  It was still something that God allowed though, for whatever reason.  Although it wasn't part of his original plan.


I don't think God actually permitted it.  To justify that, you'd need to show me a Biblical text where polygamy is permitted.  (incidentally, OTC agrees with you that polygamy was allowed in the OT)

----------


## Jamesiv1

> A person is free to form a culturally recognized marriage or one that is recognized by society or the state (or whatever or whomever else). The point is that NONE of these things play a part in what constitutes a marriage. The bible clearly teaches that it is sex ALONE that constitutes or commences a marriage (this is NOT saying that ALL marriage unions are pleasing to God, nor is it saying that marriage once began does not include MANY other things):
> 
> P1 Sex alone makes people “one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16).
> P2 “One flesh” is the marriage union (Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24).
> C1 Therefore, sex alone is the marriage union.
> 
> Refute the logic.


hmmm....

P1 "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:16 KJV

First of all, Paul had been among the faithful for what, a couple of days when he wrote that? And just before his psychological meltdown his job was sentencing people to death (especially followers of Jesus). I would call him "immature" in his walk with God.  Wisdom comes with age and experience.

Plus, according to some authors, Paul might not be the best one to be giving sex and marriage advice to heteros - if you know what I mean.

P2 "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his *wife*: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Matthew 19:5 KJV

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his *wife*: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24 KJV

Both of those refer to *wives*, not harlots. Looks like Paul missed that part --> fail.

C1 Therefore, your conclusion is bogus.

----------


## agrammatos

> I just checked some different translations.  My ESV agrees with the NIV's translation, but the NKJV and NASB agree with each other against the NIV and ESV.  I couldn't find the "literal version" on Biblegateway.com, which is disappointing as I know this is the version the OTC people use.  Different versions are here: http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013:4
> 
> Ultimately, this depends on what words are correct here.  If the translations that list "fornicators and adulterers" are correct, that disproves the OTC position right there.  Fornication is illicit sex between married people, while adultery is illicit sex between at least one married person and another person.  Two separate things.  But, fornication doesn't really exist in  the OTC paradigm, because OTC believes that sex = marriage.  So, a sexual act is either forming a legitimate marital union, or its adultery.  A listing of "fornication" would prove that there is such a thing, and that its distinct from adultery.
> 
> On the other hand, if it simply says "sexual immorality and adultery" this does not disprove the OTC position.  There are plenty of illicit acts, such as watching porn, masturbating, reading sexually explicit material, etc. that would fall under "sexual immorality" without being literal adultery.  But those things wouldn't be "fornication", which can only actually be committed if two unmarried people can illegitimately have sex, which is impossible if sex = marriage.
> 
> Does anyone know any Greek that can shed some light here?  I don't.


I do not know Greek, but hopefully this will help you to understand that you don't understand (your statement that _"fornication doesn't really exist in the OTC paradigm"_ shows you still have no clue):

Think of a Venn diagram. FORNICATION is the big outer circle, while ADULTERY is one of the smaller circles within the larger circle of Fornication. The Greek word for FORNICATION is _porneia_. It is a very broad term connoting any kind of unlawful sexual activity, including but not limited to incest, harlotry, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. The Greek word for ADULTERY is _moicheia_. It is a specific term connoting a violation of marriage. Thus, all ADULTERY is FORNICATION, but not all FORNICATION is ADULTERY. Are we clear thus far?


Now comes the very legitimate question: If all adultery is fornication, then why are fornication and adultery mentioned as two separate sins (and fornicators and adulterers mentioned as two separate kinds of sinners) in some passages?


Let's look at these passages:





> "For from within, out of the heart of men, pass out the evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," (Mar 7:21)
> 
> 
> "Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals," (1Co 6:9)
> 
> 
> "Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness," (Gal 5:19)
> 
> 
> "Marriage [is] honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers." (Heb 13:4)



Do these passages imply that adultery is not fornication? Actually, they don't. Just because they are listed separately does not mean that one does not encompass the other. We must take each instance in context. From studying these passages, I believe that when fornication and adultery (or any other specific sexual sin) are mentioned together, the fornication means "other unlawful sexual activity not listed." So instead of listing every single sexual sin, a few specific sexual sins are mentioned, and then fornication is mentioned to cover all the rest of the sexual sins. I believe that the reason adultery is specifically mentioned so many times is the importance of this sin. Adultery is a violation of the marriage bed, the marriage union.


Let's look at all the passages in the Old Testament that use both terms in the same verse:





> "And I watched. When for all the causes [for] which the apostate Israel committed adultery, I sent her away and I gave the writ of her divorce to her. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she also went and fornicated." (Jer 3:8)
> 
> 
> "And they shall deal with you in hatred and take all your labor, and shall leave you naked and bare. And the nudity of your adulteries will be bared, even your lewdness and your fornications." (Eze 23:29)
> 
> 
> "Then I said about the one worn [in] adulteries, Will they now fornicate with her, and she [with them]?" (Eze 23:43)
> 
> 
> "I will not punish your daughters when they fornicate, nor your brides when they commit adultery. For the men themselves go aside with harlots, and they sacrifice with temple prostitutes. The people [who] do not understand are thrust down." (Hos 4:14)



I think you can see how both of the terms are used here. These are parallelisms. They're used interchangeably. And this is important in showing that adultery is fornication.


Now for the remaining New Testament passages in which both terms are used in the same verse:





> "But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery." (Mat 5:32)
> 
> 
> "And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, [that one] commits adultery. And the one who marries her [who was] put away commits adultery." (Mat 19:9)



The fornication is in the "exception clause," and the adultery is what is committed by the one marrying another, the one who was put away, and the one marrying the one put away. 

There's really no such thing as premarital sex. Sex makes the two people married. However, if they are unbelievers, this sexual marriage union is fornication (unlawful sexual activity). So they're married and they're fornicators at the same time. What if one of these unbelievers then has sex with someone else? Is it fornication, or is it adultery? It is both.

Can someone be a fornicator and not be an adulterer? Yes. The above scenario in which two unregenerate virgins are married is one instance in which both are fornicators but not adulterers. Other instances include those engaged in homosexuality and bestiality.

Another thought:

One common objection and misunderstanding of the biblical teaching that sex equals marriage is seen in this quote by Andrew Cornes:





> “While it is true that in prostitution the client ‘cleaves’ to the prostitute and ‘becomes one flesh’ with her, it does not mean that he has married her. If it did, Paul could not add: ‘Flee from sexual immorality’ which in context clearly includes: flee from the prostitute (s) you have been consorting with” (Andrew Cornes, _Divorce & Remarriage_, pp. 68-69).


Cornes incorrectly assumes that all one-flesh (i.e., marriage) unions are pleasing to God. Of course, they are NOT. MANY one-flesh unions are adulterous unions. The person marrying the harlot in 1 Corinthians 6:16 MUST FLEE from this sinful one-flesh union.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

@agrammatos:

Interesting.  I'm not sure how to ask this?   How do you believe God views the current marriage of someone He saves, who has had sex prior to being saved?
Did that make sense?  THank you.

----------


## agrammatos

> @agrammatos:
> 
> Interesting.  I'm not sure how to ask this?   How do you believe God views the current marriage of someone He saves, who has had sex prior to being saved?
> Did that make sense?  THank you.


Hello, Louise.

If you have read very far on our website you will see that the prime issue is the gospel.  If you don’t believe the gospel, then to be correct on what constitutes marriage doesn’t really matter.  I encourage you to read www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm  and  www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm.

I am not quite sure exactly what you are asking. I will quote a paragraph from my marriage article and see if it helps you to expand a bit more on what you are asking:




> But what are the implications if it is NOT true that sexual intercourse equals marriage? It undermines all God's laws of sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarriage. People who say they believe that remarriage after divorce while the original spouse is still living is adultery can "get around" God's law by having a "non-committed sexual relationship" (which they do not consider marriage), and then they can break up with this person (whom they do not consider to be their spouse), and they can marry another person and still say that their current marriage is not adultery, since they didn't count their previous relationship as a marriage! It is a convenient way to excuse their current wickedness (adultery) by renaming their original relationship as a non-marriage! A couple can be in a "non-committed sexual relationship" for 20 years, then split up, and they can marry other people without violating (in their own minds) the remarriage after divorce equals adultery law! If sexual intercourse does not equal marriage, then a person can have one or a hundred "non-committed sexual relationships" and yet still be able to marry someone else without committing adultery. How repulsive. http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do not know Greek, but hopefully this will help you to understand that you don't understand (your statement that _"fornication doesn't really exist in the OTC paradigm"_ shows you still have no clue):
> 
> Think of a Venn diagram. FORNICATION is the big outer circle, while ADULTERY is one of the smaller circles within the larger circle of Fornication. The Greek word for FORNICATION is _porneia_. It is a very broad term connoting any kind of unlawful sexual activity, including but not limited to incest, harlotry, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. The Greek word for ADULTERY is _moicheia_. It is a specific term connoting a violation of marriage. Thus, all ADULTERY is FORNICATION, but not all FORNICATION is ADULTERY. Are we clear thus far?


OK, do incestuous relations between two unmarried people of the opposite gender form a marriage union?  (I noticed you answered the question about homosexuality and bestiality already, but I did not notice an answer about incest.)





> Now comes the very legitimate question: If all adultery is fornication, then why are fornication and adultery mentioned as two separate sins (and fornicators and adulterers mentioned as two separate kinds of sinners) in some passages?


Let's look at these passages:








> Do these passages imply that adultery is not fornication? Actually, they don't. Just because they are listed separately does not mean that one does not encompass the other. We must take each instance in context. From studying these passages, I believe that when fornication and adultery (or any other specific sexual sin) are mentioned together, the fornication means "other unlawful sexual activity not listed." So instead of listing every single sexual sin, a few specific sexual sins are mentioned, and then fornication is mentioned to cover all the rest of the sexual sins. I believe that the reason adultery is specifically mentioned so many times is the importance of this sin. Adultery is a violation of the marriage bed, the marriage union.


OK, fair enough. 

Let's look at all the passages in the Old Testament that use both 




> The fornication is in the "exception clause," and the adultery is what is committed by the one marrying another, the one who was put away, and the one marrying the one put away.


What do you mean by the "exception clause"?



> There's really no such thing as premarital sex.


This point is what confused me about the fornication thing.  I understand what you refer to now.  But I still have questions about this.  For instance, according to this view, it seems to me that for a regenerate believer who is not yet married would not be sinning if he has sex with another regenerate believer of the opposite gender who is not yet married, for them to do so would simply be getting married.  I don't necessarily have an issue with this, but OTC also teaches that heterosexual attraction to anyone who you are not married to is sinful.  Thus, according to OTC, if the regenerate believers in the example I gave above, are sexually attracted to each other, they'd be sinning the sin of lust.  Yet for them to actually sleep together would not be a sin.  With that being said, is there any possible way (For a regenerate believer of course, I understand that and why you would argue that unregenerates cannot avoid sinning) to get married without committing sin?  And if not, wouldn't this be a violation of the verse that teaches God always provides a way out of temptation?




> Sex makes the two people married. However, if they are unbelievers, this sexual marriage union is fornication (unlawful sexual activity). So they're married and they're fornicators at the same time. What if one of these unbelievers then has sex with someone else? Is it fornication, or is it adultery? It is both.


OK, I do understand the argument that unbelievers cannot please God.  But, this view would seem to imply that an unbeliever is somehow sinning more if he does marry than if he does not.  Is this what you intend to convey?

If a believer marries an unbeliever, are both parties fornicating or just the unbelieving party?



> Can someone be a fornicator and not be an adulterer? Yes. The above scenario in which two unregenerate virgins are married is one instance in which both are fornicators but not adulterers. Other instances include those engaged in homosexuality and bestiality.


OK, fair enough.



> Another thought:
> 
> One common objection and misunderstanding of the biblical teaching that sex equals marriage is seen in this quote by Andrew Cornes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cornes incorrectly assumes that all one-flesh (i.e., marriage) unions are pleasing to God. Of course, they are NOT. MANY one-flesh unions are adulterous unions. The person marrying the harlot in 1 Corinthians 6:16 MUST FLEE from this sinful one-flesh union.


I'd certainly agree with you that not all marriage unions are pleasing to God, the point which I still disagree with is all one-flesh unions being marriages.  Since I know you don't believe I'm saved, I don't really expect you to debate this with me, I'm just trying to ask questions to make sure I actually understand what the OTC position is and I'm curious with regards to the answers of the logical queries that have been presented so far.

I have a couple more questions to add:

If you met someone who agreed with you on every gospel issue, but disagreed with you on the sex = marriage issue, would you refuse to fellowship with them?  Why or why not?

If a man believes the gospel exactly as you believe it, but has never heard this position before and thus is unknowingly living in an adulterous relationship, is this man unsaved?  Why or why not?  if you change "Has never heard this position" to "has heard it but disagrees with it" does your answer change?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hello, Louise.
> 
> If you have read very far on our website you will see that the prime issue is the gospel.  If you dont believe the gospel, then to be correct on what constitutes marriage doesnt really matter.  I encourage you to read www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm  and  www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm.
> 
> I am not quite sure exactly what you are asking. I will quote a paragraph from my marriage article and see if it helps you to expand a bit more on what you are asking:


Yes.  I would much rather be talking about the prime issue of the gospel...the particular redemption of God's elect people and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  Agrammatos,  I would much rather see you weigh in on these issue on the board.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.  I would much rather be talking about the prime issue of the gospel...the particular redemption of God's elect people and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  Agrammatos,  I would much rather see you weigh in on these issue on the board.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying to pin either of you or discredit anything else you say because of this issue.  I'm just honestly curious how this view of marriage (Admittedly, I know you still don't know what your stance is) relates to everything else, in your mind.

I think this question is slightly easier for Chris Duncan than it is for you.  I frankly know of no churches that teach anything near what OTC teaches besides Sovereign Redeemer Assembly.  So, maybe Chris would argue that everyone who disagrees with him on marriage also disagrees with him on the gospel.  I certainly couldn't disprove such a statement if he made it.  But again, I've literally never met anyone who OTC would consider to be a Christian, and I wonder if there are even enough of them to be statistically relevant.

Just out of curiosity, @agrammatos- How many Christians do you know personally, to your knowledge?

On the other hand, for you, Sola, this is a lot trickier, since you don't put "tolerant calvinists" in the same boat as Arminians.  You and I both know there are plenty of people who accept limited atonement/particular redemption and unconditional election, and yet would be adulterers according to this view of marriage.  I know both of my parents would be adulterers according to this view, yet both of them agree with TULIP.  How do you deal with such people?  Are they unsaved because of their moral lifestyles, or are they saved because of the gospel they believe in?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Hello, Louise.
> 
> If you have read very far on our website you will see that the prime issue is the gospel.  If you don’t believe the gospel, then to be correct on what constitutes marriage doesn’t really matter.  I encourage you to read www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm  and  www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm.
> 
> I am not quite sure exactly what you are asking. I will quote a paragraph from my marriage article and see if it helps you to expand a bit more on what you are asking:


I quite agree.  The gospel is the prime issue.  I am trying to understand some of these other issues as well. Thank you.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Hello, Louise.
> 
> If you have read very far on our website you will see that the prime issue is the gospel.  If you dont believe the gospel, then to be correct on what constitutes marriage doesnt really matter.  I encourage you to read www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm  and  www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm.


This is part of the insanity that makes me a little nuts.  Not all, mind you, but the obsession many, many Christians have with arguing theology instead of thirsting for wisdom. It's madness!! lol

Don't have to read them, just click these links to have a quick look:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm

Compared to this:
Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.
Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.
The Superior Man is aware of Righteousness, the inferior man is aware of advantage.
Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart.
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.
He who learns but does not think, is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.
He that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools.
If you look into your own heart, and you find nothing wrong there, what is there to worry about? What is there to fear?
I'm not singling you out, agrammatos - I suspect every faith/religion/spiritual path has it's wack-jobs.

But it baffles me to no end...

Don't tell me how to believe, teach me how to live!!  you can start by buying me a burger - I haven't eaten in three days.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is part of the insanity that makes me a little nuts.  Not all, mind you, but the obsession many, many Christians have with arguing theology instead of thirsting for wisdom. It's madness!! lol
> 
> Don't have to read them, just click these links to have a quick look:
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm
> 
> Compared to this:
> Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.
> Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.
> ...


Thats impossible.  The Bible tells you how to live (it's by belief):



> *Galatians 3:11 NIV
> 
> ... the righteous will live by faith.*


and




> *Galatians 2:20 NIV
> 
> ...the life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I quite agree.  The gospel is the prime issue.  I am trying to understand some of these other issues as well. Thank you.


Be careful.  I'd recommend NOT reading Marc Carpenter until you are well grounded enough in scripture to separate truth from fiction.  Carpenter stumbles on a good point once in awhile but he's still insane. 



> This is part of the insanity that makes me a little nuts.  Not all, mind you, but the obsession many, many Christians have with arguing theology instead of thirsting for wisdom. It's madness!! lol
> 
> Don't have to read them, just click these links to have a quick look:
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm
> 
> Compared to this:Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.
> Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.
> I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
> ...


In this case, OTC and agrammatos are the wack-jobs of Christianity

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Thats impossible.  The Bible tells you how to live (it's by belief)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				"...the righteous will live by faith. -Galatians 3:11 NIV
> "...the life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." -Galatians 2:20 NIV


meh. Paulinism

Paul had his moments - don't get me wrong. I Corinthians 13 is nice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> meh. Paulinism
> 
> Paul had his moments - don't get me wrong. I Corinthians 13 is nice.


"Paulinism"?  That assumes that Paul was not an apostle or didn't have authority to define Christian doctrine.   But he did.

Paul didn't contradict Jesus in a single syllable.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Be careful.  I'd recommend NOT reading Marc Carpenter until you are well grounded enough in scripture to separate truth from fiction.  Carpenter stumbles on a good point once in awhile but he's still insane. 
> 
> 
> In this case, OTC and agrammatos are the wack-jobs of Christianity


I've gotten these warnings from quite a few here.  Some from the Roman Catholics, some from the Orthodox, a couple from strict Calvinists, well you get the picture, FF.    I'm waiting for agrammatos to warn me about you.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> "Paulinism"?  That assumes that Paul was not an apostle or didn't have authority to define Christian doctrine.   But he did.


He wasn't one of the twelve. The "Apostle to the Gentiles" - ok, I'll give you that, for what it's worth.

My point is simply that I seriously doubt Jesus would recognize durn near anything we today call Christianity.  I think he would read Paul's epistles and go "wut?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've gotten these warnings from quite a few here.  Some from the Roman Catholics, some from the Orthodox, a couple from strict Calvinists, well you get the picture, FF.


OK, I should be fair.  If you ignore the fact that he's incredibly annoying, discouraging, and judgmental (And that's me saying that, for crying out loud), Marc Carpenter is doctrinally superior to Roman Catholics or EOs.  At least Marc does explain the gospel, despite the fact that he does so to an exceptionally precise degree, and gets a few secondary points wrong, and then tells you that unless you refuse to fellowship with anybody who disagrees with any of the points, you aren't saved. 



> I'm waiting for agrammatos to warn me about you.



With the posssible exception of "Icon O'Clast" there's not a single member here that Duncan/agrammatos would even consider to be a Christian.  This includes Sola_Fide, who's obviously a wicked God-hater for tolerating tolerant calvinists (Sarcasm intended.)  So, I have no doubt he'd warn you about me.  

I'd recommend just going to the scriptures.  1 Corinthians 15 is a great start.  




> "Paulinism"?  That assumes that Paul was not an apostle or didn't have authority to define Christian doctrine.   But he did.
> 
> Paul didn't contradict Jesus in a single syllable.


Could Paul have contradicted Jesus (on a non-gospel issue) when he was not writing scripture?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My point is simply that I seriously doubt Jesus would recognize durn near anything we today call Christianity.  I think he would read Paul's epistles and go "wut?"


That is ridiculous.  Jesus sent Paul Himself.  Jesus said at Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus:




> Acts 9:15-16 NIV
> 
> But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.  I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

----------


## Christian Liberty

At this point I think I'm going to try to go through the whole thread and quote all of the questions so we have them available for whenever agrammatos gets around to them.  Because at this point this thread is drifting way off topic.

----------


## eduardo89

> Could Paul have contradicted Jesus (on a non-gospel issue) when he was not writing scripture?


Of course. He was a man, therefore fallible, just like Peter and all the other authors of Scripture. Scripture, however, is inerrant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course. He was a man, therefore fallible, just like Peter and all the other authors of Scripture. Scripture, however, is inerrant.


Does the Pope ever contradict the Scriptures?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course. He was a man, therefore fallible, just like Peter and all the other authors of Scripture. Scripture, however, is inerrant.


Yes, I completely agree.

----------


## agrammatos

> I don't really know for sure, and I think I addressed this to the best of my ability.  Micah 2:14 says that marriage is formed by COVENANT, not sexual intercourse.  John 4:18 clearly shows a woman "being with" a man (clearly implying sex) that she is not married to.  Hebrews 4:13 addresses adultery and fornication as separate sins.  And I think its a massive leap in logic to assume that since marriage is a one-flesh union, and that sexual intercourse is a one-flesh union, that sexual intercourse is marriage.  It implies that all one-flesh unions are the same.  But the passages I mention above discredit this idea.
> 
> So, to give quick, at a glance answers:
> 
> a: yes
> 
> b: yes
> 
> c: no
> ...


What you deny, Paul expected the Corinthians to have _already known, concluded, and affirmed_ from Genesis 2:24.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What you deny, Paul expected the Corinthians to have _already known, concluded, and affirmed_ from Genesis 2:24.


That's a very big stretch.  I could just as easily argue, more easily, actually, that Micah 2:14 and John 4:18 disprove your points.

But: I've answered your questions.  I'd like to see answers to mine.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What you deny, Paul expected the Corinthians to have _already known, concluded, and affirmed_ from Genesis 2:24.


Also, if they already knew, the Jews would teach the same thing, or at least, they would have in the 1st century.  Why didn't they?

In addition to that, Hosea married a harlot.  Wouldn't this make him an adulterer according to your theology?

The more I think about this issue, the more I realize your stance makes no sense.

----------


## agrammatos

> Also, if they already knew, the Jews would teach the same thing, or at least, they would have in the 1st century.  Why didn't they?
> 
> In addition to that, Hosea married a harlot.  Wouldn't this make him an adulterer according to your theology?
> 
> The more I think about this issue, the more I realize your stance makes no sense.


Perhaps it's your false glosses and idiotic straw-men that make no sense. Nah. Couldn't be that. Your history of accurate restatments of our position is virtually unblemished.

----------


## agrammatos

> That's a very big stretch.  I could just as easily argue, more easily, actually, that Micah 2:14 and John 4:18 disprove your points.


It's quite clear that you cannot refute the painfully perspicuous teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:15-16.




> But: I've answered your questions.  I'd like to see answers to mine.


Perhaps the one that began like this?




> 1. One year old child is raped, does not remember the experience, nor is he/she ever told that he/she was raped



I'm supposed to be flummoxed by this I guess. You keep knocking your head against the brick of Biblical clarity and truth. I would usually reply to a true Christian wondering about these issues, rather than someone who appears to be reverencing small children over God's clear truth about the serious implications of sex. Any possible "power" in this argument or dilemma is in the popular sentiment that God's truth is subservient to all the various and sundry emotional grenades that are lobbed by those who cannot refute Biblical truth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's quite clear that you cannot refute the painfully perspicuous teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:15-16.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the one that began like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supposed to be flummoxed by this I guess. You keep knocking your head against the brick of Biblical clarity and truth. I would usually reply to a true Christian wondering about these issues, rather than someone who appears to be reverencing small children over God's clear truth about the serious implications of sex. Any possible "power" in this argument or dilemma is in the popular sentiment that God's truth is subservient to all the various and sundry emotional grenades that are lobbed by those who cannot refute Biblical truth.


I agree with this FF.  The emotional arguments of universal atonement advocates who talk about predestined babies burning in Hell are things that we try to immediately separate from emotion.  We try to find the clarity of the truth, and we reject the knee jerk emotionalism that comes with the argument.

----------


## RJB

For posterity.  Answers to if a one year old child is married to his or her rapist:



> I'm supposed to be flummoxed by this I guess. You keep knocking your head against the brick of Biblical clarity and truth. I would usually reply to a true Christian wondering about these issues, rather than someone who appears to be reverencing small children over God's clear truth about the serious implications of sex. Any possible "power" in this argument or dilemma is in the popular sentiment that God's truth is subservient to all the various and sundry emotional grenades that are lobbed by those who cannot refute Biblical truth.





> I agree with this FF.  The emotional arguments of universal atonement advocates who talk about predestined babies burning in Hell are things that we try to immediately separate from emotion.  We try to find the clarity of the truth, and we reject the knee jerk emotionalism that comes with the argument.

----------


## agrammatos

> For posterity.  Answers to if a one year old child is married to his or her rapist:


RJB is only one of MANY repulsive people who undermine _"all God's laws of sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarriage"_:




> But what are the implications if it is NOT true that sexual intercourse equals marriage? It undermines all God's laws of sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarriage. People who say they believe that remarriage after divorce while the original spouse is still living is adultery can "get around" God's law by having a "non-committed sexual relationship" (which they do not consider marriage), and then they can break up with this person (whom they do not consider to be their spouse), and they can marry another person and still say that their current marriage is not adultery, since they didn't count their previous relationship as a marriage! It is a convenient way to excuse their current wickedness (adultery) by renaming their original relationship as a non-marriage! A couple can be in a "non-committed sexual relationship" for 20 years, then split up, and they can marry other people without violating (in their own minds) the remarriage after divorce equals adultery law! If sexual intercourse does not equal marriage, then a person can have one or a hundred "non-committed sexual relationships" and yet still be able to marry someone else without committing adultery. How repulsive.


By the way, OTC is NOT the first or only group of professing Christians who takes the BIBLICAL view of marriage. I was informed of the following quote several years ago (to my knowledge, no one associated with OTC wrote this):




> "In the church we teach the youth that sex before marriage is a sin, that they must be married before they can have sex. The world lives by the opposite by having sex before they are married. This is what the youth are taught. However, the bible teaches a completely different approach to human relationships; an aspect that is completely ignored. The bible actually teaches that sex is marriage. The act of the sexual union is in fact the actual marriage. The ceremony on the other hand is simply the public establishment of the titles of Husband and Wife from their betrothal. But the marriage is the sexual act itself. Now, we have been teaching a generation of youth a doctrine that has separated the act of sexual union from the institution of marriage. This is why some youth experiment with these things but do not ever even consider that the act they engage in is in fact the biblical definition of marriage. How different, do you suppose, would the youth react toward the subject of sexual purity if they understood that the sexual experience in any form would bind them to the person as an act of marriage? This is the biblical way of looking at sex, yet it is not what is taught in the church. This reinterpretation of sex and marriage, as it is understood today, has fed into the deception that has kept our youth in bondage to all kinds of gross sin. How can we expect our children to make wise decisions concerning their potential spouses when we teach them wrong concepts of what marriage actually is when God's Word says differently (See Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 21:10-13, 25:5, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20)?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with this FF.  The emotional arguments of universal atonement advocates who talk about predestined babies burning in Hell are things that we try to immediately separate from emotion.  We try to find the clarity of the truth, and we reject the knee jerk emotionalism that comes with the argument.


I'll address this more later (ironically, I have to go to a wedding in a minute) but my issue isn't "oh the horror, a one year old might get raped and then they wouldn't be able to get married and that's not fair."  That would be an emotional argument.

What I'm asking is WHAT HAPPENS if a person who is unknowingly 'married' then gets married to someone else and is a regenerate believer who believes all of the doctrines on outside the camp?  This hypothetical person should be considered  regenerate, according to Chris, yet they are unknowingly living in adultery.  I'm curious how Chris deals with this.

Will clarify more later.

----------


## RJB

> RJB is only one of MANY repulsive people who undermine _"all God's laws of sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarriage"_:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, OTC is NOT the first or only group of professing Christians who takes the BIBLICAL view of marriage. I was informed of the following quote several years ago (to my knowledge, no one associated with OTC wrote this):


 What did I say that would give you the idea that I'm a repulsive person who undermines God's law in my above quotation?

More importantly:

*Are the parents to give the one year old rape victim to the rapist to live out this marraige?*

----------


## agrammatos

> I'll address this more later (ironically, I have to go to a wedding in a minute) but my issue isn't "oh the horror, a one year old might get raped and then they wouldn't be able to get married and that's not fair."  That would be an emotional argument.


Thank you for that, FreedomFanatic (since multitudes are intellectual cowards who resort to emotional grenades instead of actual arguments). Here is one such clueless grenade that was thrown out 6 or 7 years ago:




> "A young Christian woman has kept herself chaste with a view to Christian marriage, and is engaged to a godly Christian man. Shortly before her wedding, she is brutally assaulted and raped by a vicious Satanist. Since 'sex equals marriage' even when it is involuntary, she is now in the sight of God married to the Satanist. It is therefore her clear bounden duty to break off her engagement to the godly believer, to move in with the Satanist and perform towards him all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife. Nothing could be clearer."


This doltish wonder exhibits hatred to this poor (hypothetical) woman, adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted, Satanist rapist. She is however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate (i.e., unmarried) for the rest of her days. 

The suggestion that this raped woman go ahead and remarry while the one flesh partner is still living -- the rapist, in this hypothetical case -- is a suggestion for her to go ahead and live a life that is characterized by adultery (Romans 7:3). And thus this objector is more hateful and vicious than the perverted rapist. For while the rapist would brutally murder her freedom to remarry in the Lord, the clueless objector would brutally murder her soul.




> What I'm asking is WHAT HAPPENS if a person who is unknowingly 'married' then gets married to someone else and is a regenerate believer who believes all of the doctrines on outside the camp?  This hypothetical person should be considered  regenerate, according to Chris, yet they are unknowingly living in adultery.  I'm curious how Chris deals with this.
> 
> Will clarify more later.


The Bible makes clear-cut distinctions about "knowingly and unknowingly." In 2 John 9-11 there's the issue of "if anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine ..." Obviously if a person lies about which doctrine they bear, then there could be "unknowing peace-speaking." Similarly, a hypothetical "Uriah" is not morally culpable for sleeping with an adulterous "Bathsheba" whom he has supposed and assumed to be a faithful Proverbs 31 woman. The Scriptural issues regarding things like peace-speaking and adultery always deal with what a person knows about the other person.

----------


## TER

Lord have mercy.

----------


## agrammatos

> Lord have mercy.


Would you mind clarifying or expounding on this a bit? No? Don't wish to contend with the Hammer of God's word? Eh, probably not.

----------


## TER

I'm simply praying here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm simply praying here.


To who?

----------


## MelissaWV

> To who?


Whom.

Someday these threads just won't happen anymore.  There seems to be a much more enthusiastic effort to prove or disprove one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, than to elect or support grassroots efforts of any sort.  Strangely, when I look at the list of people who are most often involved, I also see a list (with very few but very notable exceptions) of people who rarely seem willing to contribute to doing anything remotely related to the forums' stated goal.  Go figure.

----------


## RJB

> Lord have mercy.


Amen.  (No sarcasm, but a shared prayer.)

I'm amazed at the complete disdain for pretty much all of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (sheep and the goats, Love God and thy neighbor, etc.) yet the mental gymnastics to focus on that one verse.  I won't argue any further.  Others have put forth better biblical refutations.  I believe those two should ask themselves if this has happened to them:  


> God sends men a delusion so that they cannot believe the truth.


TER quoted earlier that "these only come out with prayer and fasting."  

I read a post at their blog (OTC) to shun the unbeliever.  I believe I will actually take that advice and shake off the dust.

----------


## agrammatos

> Amen.  (No sarcasm, but a shared prayer.)
> 
> I'm amazed at the complete disdain for pretty much all of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (sheep and the goats, Love God and thy neighbor, etc.) yet the mental gymnastics to focus on that one verse.  I won't argue any further.  Others have put forth better biblical refutations.  I believe those two should ask themselves if this has happened to them:  
> 
> TER quoted earlier that "these only come out with prayer and fasting."  
> 
> I read a post at their blog (OTC) to shun the unbeliever.  I believe I will actually take that advice and shake off the dust.


By your lights it seems apparent that Jesus was disdaining His own words when dealing with pugnacious Pharisees, while esteeming His own words when dealing with others of a less belligerent nature (e.g., woman at the well, woman "caught in adultery").

----------


## RJB

> By your lights it seems apparent that Jesus was disdaining His own words when dealing with pugnacious Pharisees, while esteeming His own words when dealing with others of a less belligerent nature (e.g., woman at the well, woman "caught in adultery").


I agree with the words of Jesus.  I disagree with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with the words of Jesus.  I disagree with you.


In what way do I disdain the Lord's command to love my neighbor?   Why do you bring up the sheep and the goats as something I don't accept?   Have you ever read John 10?  What does Jesus say about His sheep?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What did I say that would give you the idea that I'm a repulsive person who undermines God's law in my above quotation?
> 
> More importantly:
> 
> *Are the parents to give the one year old rape victim to the rapist to live out this marraige?*


Agrammatos has answered this in the negative already.  But my question for agrammatos, SF, or anyone else who may take the OTC position on this issue: in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:5, WHY do you say this?  If rape really does create a marital union, based on a literal "non-emotionalistic" reading of this verse, wouldn't the woman who was raped be morally obligated "not to deprive" the rapist?

Of course, being the tolerant calvinist "heretic" that I am, I'd tend to think the common sense reading of this would make an exception for rape (ie. if your husband is a rapist, that would be a common sense exception to the "do not deprive each other" command.)  But it seems equally logical to me, even if sex generally does create marriage (Note that I do not accept this, but it doesn't really matter) to make an exception when rape is committed.  



> Thank you for that, FreedomFanatic (since multitudes are intellectual cowards who resort to emotional grenades instead of actual arguments). Here is one such clueless grenade that was thrown out 6 or 7 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> This doltish wonder exhibits hatred to this poor (hypothetical) woman, adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted, Satanist rapist. She is however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate (i.e., unmarried) for the rest of her days. 
> 
> The suggestion that this raped woman go ahead and remarry while the one flesh partner is still living -- the rapist, in this hypothetical case -- is a suggestion for her to go ahead and live a life that is characterized by adultery (Romans 7:3). And thus this objector is more hateful and vicious than the perverted rapist. For while the rapist would brutally murder her freedom to remarry in the Lord, the clueless objector would brutally murder her soul.


I honestly tend to agree with the spirit behind the "emotionalistic" argument, but I wasn't really going to go there because I agree that its not helpful.  I just wanted to figure out logically how this works out in different situations.

Let's change the scenario a bit.  Say the woman is already married (legitimately, ie. both parties were virgins.)  Then the woman is raped.  Is the man now obligated to separate from her?  Is the woman now an adulteress?




> The Bible makes clear-cut distinctions about "knowingly and unknowingly." In 2 John 9-11 there's the issue of "if anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine ..." Obviously if a person lies about which doctrine they bear, then there could be "unknowing peace-speaking." Similarly, a hypothetical "Uriah" is not morally culpable for sleeping with an adulterous "Bathsheba" whom he has supposed and assumed to be a faithful Proverbs 31 woman. The Scriptural issues regarding things like peace-speaking and adultery always deal with what a person knows about the other person.


Would the same thing apply for what a person knows about themself?  (ie. in my hypothetical scenario, a woman is raped when she is one year old, doesn't remember, and is never told?)




> By your lights it seems apparent that Jesus was disdaining His own words when dealing with pugnacious Pharisees, while esteeming His own words when dealing with others of a less belligerent nature (e.g., woman at the well, woman "caught in adultery").


I'm not really sure what you mean here, can you clarify?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In what way do I disdain the Lord's command to love my neighbor?   Why do you bring up the sheep and the goats as something I don't accept?   Have you ever read John 10?  What does Jesus say about His sheep?


Was he even talking to you, or was he talking to agrammatos?

----------


## RJB

> In what way do I disdain the Lord's command to love my neighbor?   Why do you bring up the sheep and the goats as something I don't accept?   Have you ever read John 10?  What does Jesus say about His sheep?


I think it's best to take your advice to shun those (You) who go against the Gospel.  If we go on, is this conversation out of concern for our immortal souls or is it for more for forum drama or to give more posts to bury your opinion of a raped 1 year old's marriage bond?  I'm not in the mood to argue for the sake of arguing.  Tomorrow is my last day on the internet for 40 days except an hour on Sundays.  I'd rather not spend it in pointless discussion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think it's best to take your advice to shun those (You) who go against the Gospel.  If we go on, is this conversation out of concern for our immortal souls or is it for more for forum drama or to give more posts to bury your opinion of a raped 1 year old's marriage bond?  I'm not in the mood to argue for the sake of arguing.  Tomorrow is my last day on the internet for 40 days except an hour on Sundays.  I'd rather not spend it in pointless discussion.


To be fair, Sola didn't really want to discuss this.  I kind of pushed him into it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Perhaps it's your false glosses and idiotic straw-men that make no sense. Nah. Couldn't be that. Your history of accurate restatments of our position is virtually unblemished.


Well, you could clarify the misconceptions, or you could just call me an idiot and accomplish nothing.  I'm TRYING to state what you guys believe correctly, but perhaps I have not done so.  Frankly, I think you assume that I'm purposely misrepresenting simply because you dislike me.

----------


## agrammatos

> The presumption that you are making is that, because sex forms a one-flesh union, and marriage is a one flesh union, that sex = marriage. But this is not necessarily the case, there can be other (illegitimate, of course) sexual unions that are not marriages.


The presumption that you are making is that because all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, that Socrates = mortal. But this is not necessarily the case, there can be other (illigitimate, of course) Socrateses that are not mortal. Socrates the Boston Terrier, for instance.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The presumption that you are making is that because all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, that Socrates = mortal. But this is not necessarily the case, there can be other (illigitimate, of course) Socrateses that are not mortal. Socrates the Boston Terrier, for instance.


If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.  Duh.

But this doesn't parallel my argument.  Your argument is more like, if all men are mortal, and Socrates is mortal, than Socrates must be a man.  But this does not necessarily follow.

----------


## eduardo89

Why was andrytim0er banned?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why was andrytim0er banned?


Because he was another one of your sock puppet accounts?

----------


## eduardo89

> Because he was another one of your sock puppet accounts?


If he was, I'd be banned.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because he was another one of your sock puppet accounts?


No, he wasn't.  He actually alluded to scripture.  Ed would just have quoted tradition

----------


## eduardo89

> No, he wasn't.  He actually alluded to scripture.  Ed would just have quoted tradition


Funny

----------


## Eagles' Wings

"In the church we teach the youth that sex before marriage is a sin, that they must be married before they can have sex. The world lives by the opposite by having sex before they are married. This is what the youth are taught. However, the bible teaches a completely different approach to human relationships; an aspect that is completely ignored. The bible actually teaches that sex is marriage. The act of the sexual union is in fact the actual marriage. The ceremony on the other hand is simply the public establishment of the titles of Husband and Wife from their betrothal. But the marriage is the sexual act itself. Now, we have been teaching a generation of youth a doctrine that has separated the act of sexual union from the institution of marriage. This is why some youth experiment with these things but do not ever even consider that the act they engage in is in fact the biblical definition of marriage. How different, do you suppose, would the youth react toward the subject of sexual purity if they understood that the sexual experience in any form would bind them to the person as an act of marriage? This is the biblical way of looking at sex, yet it is not what is taught in the church. This reinterpretation of sex and marriage, as it is understood today, has fed into the deception that has kept our youth in bondage to all kinds of gross sin. How can we expect our children to make wise decisions concerning their potential spouses when we teach them wrong concepts of what marriage actually is when God's Word says differently (See Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 21:10-13, 25:5, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20)?" 

Okay, I'm still learning about copy and paste.  This was a quote sent by agrammatos in a previous post on this thread.  I am absolutely without a doubt going to tell the young adults who are still in our home about this.  We will study this and they will learn this from God.

This teaching could save many from sin and a lifetime of anguish.

----------


## eduardo89

> Okay, I'm still learning about copy and paste.  This was a quote sent by agrammatos in a previous post on this thread.  I am absolutely without a doubt going to tell the young adults who are still in our home about this.  We will study this and they will learn this from God.
> 
> This teaching could save many from sin and a lifetime of anguish.


You're going to teach them that sex and marriage are the same thing?

----------


## Terry1

When will people understand the New Covenant of Christ?  Sex has absolutely nothing to do with a spiritual marriage in Christ.  Sex is nothing more than a sin when it's practiced outside of a spiritual marriage in Christ--like any other sin.  A spiritual marriage in Christ is between two believers.  A piece of paper from the court house means nothing to God.

Just because two people of the same sex, any sex decided to marry, certainly does not mean that's whom God has joined together.  When will people understand that the carnal flesh and the spirit war with each other over these issues.  The very people accusing others of dead works are the main ones committing them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "In the church we teach the youth that sex before marriage is a sin, that they must be married before they can have sex. The world lives by the opposite by having sex before they are married. This is what the youth are taught. However, the bible teaches a completely different approach to human relationships; an aspect that is completely ignored. The bible actually teaches that sex is marriage. The act of the sexual union is in fact the actual marriage. The ceremony on the other hand is simply the public establishment of the titles of Husband and Wife from their betrothal. But the marriage is the sexual act itself. Now, we have been teaching a generation of youth a doctrine that has separated the act of sexual union from the institution of marriage. This is why some youth experiment with these things but do not ever even consider that the act they engage in is in fact the biblical definition of marriage. How different, do you suppose, would the youth react toward the subject of sexual purity if they understood that the sexual experience in any form would bind them to the person as an act of marriage? This is the biblical way of looking at sex, yet it is not what is taught in the church. This reinterpretation of sex and marriage, as it is understood today, has fed into the deception that has kept our youth in bondage to all kinds of gross sin. How can we expect our children to make wise decisions concerning their potential spouses when we teach them wrong concepts of what marriage actually is when God's Word says differently (See Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 21:10-13, 25:5, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20)?" 
> 
> Okay, I'm still learning about copy and paste.  This was a quote sent by agrammatos in a previous post on this thread.  I am absolutely without a doubt going to tell the young adults who are still in our home about this.  We will study this and they will learn this from God.
> 
> This teaching could save many from sin and a lifetime of anguish.


I agree.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> "In the church we teach the youth that sex before marriage is a sin, that they must be married before they can have sex. The world lives by the opposite by having sex before they are married. This is what the youth are taught. However, the bible teaches a completely different approach to human relationships; an aspect that is completely ignored. The bible actually teaches that sex is marriage. The act of the sexual union is in fact the actual marriage. The ceremony on the other hand is simply the public establishment of the titles of Husband and Wife from their betrothal. But the marriage is the sexual act itself. Now, we have been teaching a generation of youth a doctrine that has separated the act of sexual union from the institution of marriage. This is why some youth experiment with these things but do not ever even consider that the act they engage in is in fact the biblical definition of marriage. How different, do you suppose, would the youth react toward the subject of sexual purity if they understood that the sexual experience in any form would bind them to the person as an act of marriage? This is the biblical way of looking at sex, yet it is not what is taught in the church. This reinterpretation of sex and marriage, as it is understood today, has fed into the deception that has kept our youth in bondage to all kinds of gross sin. How can we expect our children to make wise decisions concerning their potential spouses when we teach them wrong concepts of what marriage actually is when God's Word says differently (See Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 21:10-13, 25:5, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20)?"


What if, by the time they are having sex, this "generation of youth" doesn't believe much in the Bible? Or believes and/or practices some other faith?

Don't get me wrong, I believe the moral fabric of western civilization has been on the decline for decades, if not centuries. But still, if the youth are living basically good, moral lives according to the beliefs and practices of some other spiritual path, and is wisely using 'protection' while they're at it, is that so abominable?

----------


## eduardo89

> But still, if the youth are living basically good, moral lives according to the beliefs and practices of some other spiritual path, and is wisely using 'protection' while they're at it, is that so abominable?


Yes, because it will lead them to hell.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree.


I disagree.  Mind you, you're right that it COULD.  But it could also create a lifetime of anguish for other people.  I know rape is the most obvious and emotionally extreme example, but the numerous examples of people who are now in adulterous marriages because of this doctrine would certainly qualify as well.  Some might even be adulterers not so much because of their own actions (ie. they themselves may have stayed celibate until marriage) but because of the actions of their spouses.

Not to mention that agrammatos has yet to explain  how its actually possible to get married  without sinning, since Marc Carpenter defines any heterosexual attraction outside of marriage (thus, for Marc,and Chris, outside of having sexual intercourse with someone).  

Of course, I agree that the first paragraph is mostly irrelevant when it comes to dealing with this doctrine Biblically.  I'm not saying we should determine the truth or falsehood of a doctrine by its consequences.

----------


## moostraks

> What if, by the time they are having sex, this "generation of youth" doesn't believe much in the Bible? Or believes and/or practices some other faith?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe the moral fabric of western civilization has been on the decline for decades, if not centuries. But still, if the youth are living basically good, moral lives according to the beliefs and practices of some other spiritual path, and is wisely using 'protection' while they're at it, is that so abominable?


I think that the issue is not so much the acts themself but all the emotional and physical repercussions that a lifestyle such as you are proposing entail. This also applies when someone proposes new moral standards with absurd conditions and calls it Biblical. We should mull over the verses in question and try to see the wisdom and use discernment regarding the new conditions being proposed.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. In both situations, you can't fight the repercussions that occur when you try to buck the odds of ignoring certain consequences occur according to certain choices we make. Some people will heed advice, others will find out by experience, and some are so willfully obstinate that they continue no matter how much they suffer from the natural negative results of their actions. It is likely worse for the ones who become extremists such as the rape is marriage crowd as they think the pain makes them martyrs and yet IMO they will be judged by the thoughtless and loveless nature of their doctrines.

----------


## Terry1

I believe sincerely that the diseases associated with promiscuous sexual acts are nothing more or less than the curse that goes hand in hand with that particular sin.  Some escape it for a while, but most end up infected with either a deadly virus or a life threatening disease.  People who are innocent get infected as well, but then--they're not the ones who are held accountable for that sin either.  Sadly though, innocent people die because of those who are the cause of it.

Sex outside of a monogamous relationship is simply deadly these days.  Those who venture into it are taking the risks knowing full well what can happen as a result of it.  With the morals that society has adopted today, our youth have a hard time understanding why it's wrong.

----------


## agrammatos

> If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.  Duh.
> 
> But this doesn't parallel my argument.  Your argument is more like, if all men are mortal, and Socrates is mortal, than Socrates must be a man.  But this does not necessarily follow.


SIGH. Let's try this again. An argument is VALID when its conclusion follows logically from its premises. The term SOUND is used to indicate that all the premises in an argument are true AND that the argument is valid.

The following is an argument that is VALID (it is stated in valid form), but it is NOT sound. The conclusion follows logically from the premises (i.e., it is valid). BUT the argument is not SOUND since premise 2 and the conclusion are false:





> All men are sinners
> My dog Spot is a man
> Therefore, my dog Spot is a sinner


Here is an argument that contains true premises and a true conclusion, BUT the argument is NOT VALID, and therefore it is NOT SOUND:





> ALL men are sinners
> All dogs are not cats
> Therefore Jesus is God


Here is my argument concerning what constitute marriage that is BOTH VALID and SOUND:





> P1 Sex alone makes people "one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16).
> P2 "One flesh" is the marriage union (Matthew 19:6; Genesis 2:24).
> C1 Therefore, sex alone is the marriage union.


In the syllogism above, the conclusion follows logically from the two premises. Therefore, it is a VALID argument. No one can dispute that. What _could be_ disputed is my arguments SOUNDNESS. That is, someone could argue that my argument is not SOUND due to errors stated in my syllogism. So, to prove that this argument is not SOUND, you must point out the statements that are untrue.

----------


## Christian Liberty

In the ESV Matthew 19:6 uses the term "one flesh" but 1 Corinthians 6:16 uses the term "one body."  I'm not sure if the Greek works are different or not, so I'm not sure if this distinction is relevant.

Regardless, however, Malachi 2:14 describes a wife being taken by covenant.  This proves that the physical act of sexual intercourse alone is insufficient to create a marital relationship.  I would challenge the soundness of your argument based on Premise 2.  I would argue that not all one-flesh unions are marital relationships.  A marital relationship must include a COVENANT.

----------


## Christian Liberty

In addition to this, John 4:18 clearly shows a woman "being with" a man who she is not married to.  Being with a man sexually is insufficient to be married to him.

----------


## Nang

> In addition to this, John 4:18 clearly shows a woman "being with" a man who she is not married to.  Being with a man sexually is insufficient to be married to him.


I agree.

Covenant commitment is the basis of all morality.

No covenant . . . no legitimate or God-blessed relationships of any kind.

----------


## moostraks

> I believe sincerely that the diseases associated with promiscuous sexual acts are nothing more or less than the curse that goes hand in hand with that particular sin.  Some escape it for a while, but most end up infected with either a deadly virus or a life threatening disease.  People who are innocent get infected as well, but then--they're not the ones who are held accountable for that sin either.  Sadly though, innocent people die because of those who are the cause of it.
> 
> Sex outside of a monogamous relationship is simply deadly these days.  Those who venture into it are taking the risks knowing full well what can happen as a result of it.  With the morals that society has adopted today, our youth have a hard time understanding why it's wrong.


This is along the lines of what I was thinking. People nowadays dismiss old fashioned values of committed relationships as being outdated but it is largely because they aren't seeing the wisdom behind it. It also entails the potential for children as protection with sex is no guarantee. If you don't want to be tethered to the person you are having sex with for a lifetime then you shouldn't be having sex. Besides it devalues a very beautiful aspect of life to just have sex with anyone. The rape is marriage crowd devalues sex as well but in their own unique way. They have found a means by which they can inflict their contempt upon victims and proclaim their own martyrdom. Those who lack compassion and love will be judged by their own standards.

----------


## pcosmar

Question for the Scribes and Pharisees, (have not read entire thread,, if this has been addressed)

What about Concubines?

----------


## Terry1

> This is along the lines of what I was thinking. People nowadays dismiss old fashioned values of committed relationships as being outdated but it is largely because they aren't seeing the wisdom behind it. It also entails the potential for children as protection with sex is no guarantee. If you don't want to be tethered to the person you are having sex with for a lifetime then you shouldn't be having sex. Besides it devalues a very beautiful aspect of life to just have sex with anyone. The rape is marriage crowd devalues sex as well but in their own unique way. They have found a means by which they can inflict their contempt upon victims and proclaim their own martyrdom. Those who lack compassion and love will be judged by their own standards.


We're living in the age of the reversal of God's morality.  Secular humanism vs the morality of God.  If we stand back and take a look at what society has evolved to morally speaking, just in the last 60 or 70 years, we can see how what used to be considered immoral and unlawful is now considered a chic and bold fashion statement by those who do not retain the knowledge of God and His morality.  

Society is fulfilling the prophecy of God simply by the decline of morality and God being more an affront to the way people choose to live opposite God.  The Godless are winning this battle here on earth for a time until the Lord returns.  All things considered abominations by God are becoming untouchable and considered lawful and acceptable.  Christians are being sued, discriminated against and persecuted for their refusal to become part of this society and participate with those involved in these perverse lifestyles.  Things are only going to get worse before the Lord returns.  Mankind is going to become so corrupt in nature before the Lord returns that they will literally tear each other apart.  This is already happening today.

Children are literally being indoctrinated into this mindset of secular values in every public learning institution.  Children that are homeschooled by their believing parents usually are taught and raised to understand the difference is moral values.  

We're indeed living in the very last days and end times and I have thought that we could very well possibly already be living in the "time of sorrows", which is the first half of the tribulation.  I'm not positive, but from what I have researched, it's very possible.

----------


## pcosmar

> Question for the Scribes and Pharisees, (have not read entire thread,, if this has been addressed)
> *
> What about Concubines?*


Oh,, and I do not really expect a serious answer.. 

Just something for you to try to expand your narrow minds with.

And Concubines are mentioned throughout the Bible. I have found no condemnation,, and some had a notable place in the story.

----------


## moostraks

> Oh,, and I do not really expect a serious answer.. 
> 
> Just something for you to try to expand your narrow minds with.
> 
> And Concubines are mentioned throughout the Bible. I have found no condemnation,, and some had a notable place in the story.


Your questioned had me curious as I will admit not to being well versed on the issue of concubines  so ran into a similar discussion on another forum and found this response:

"God did condemn multiple wives (including concubines) for the Kings of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:17) They disobeyed God (2 Samuel 5:13) and it cost the entire nation it's place in the world. The nation of Israel, for multiple generations, paid a price that King Solomon never could have dreamed of.

For the ordinary man?

There is NO place in the bible that I can find where a man had concubines or multiple wives where life was not miserable for the women and for the husband.

Consider the grief of the following people:
~Abraham and Sarah (Inviting Hagar into the marriage and producing a son that was NOT the son of the promise, condemning an entire group of people to hell, who did not believe in the God of their own father. Hagar was not his only concubine and he had other children whom he sent "away" from his son, Isaac. Genesis 25:6)

~Jacob and Rachel (She should have been his only wife and her child his first born; he, in showing extreme partiality to Joseph, Rachel's son, devastated his other children's lives and caused them much misery. He wouldn't even NAME his own children that were born to his other wife and two concubines)

~Jacob and Leah (The bible says twice that he hated her; can you imagine being unattractive, hated, and your husband having sex with you only to have more children; I can't imagine what is was like for her to have a man touch her who hated her so vehemently. )

~Jacob and the concubines (These women were brought in only to appease Leah and Rachel in their contest to bear the most children and Rueben, Jacob's own son, slept with one of these women just to spite his father)

~The Levite and his concubine (The Levite in Judges 19 had a concubine who ran away and went back to her father. He went after her and on the way back home, they stayed with a particular man. That night, some vile men came to the door and wanted to have sex with the Levite. The owner of the house said no and offered his daughter instead for them to abuse. The Levite took his concubine and shoved her out the door and the men sexually abused her all night long, so says the Bible. The next morning, the Levite gets ups and finds her at the doorstep and say "Get up, let's go" and finds her DEAD! Now he gets mad because they killed her and chops her body into 12 pieces and sends to his fellow Israelites.)


~Hannah and her husband (Hannah couldn't have children, so her husband spent a fortune on her in sacrifices. More than he spent on the sacrifices of his other wife and her children. The other wife was hurt and took it out on Hannah. The bible says that the two women were adversaries. Hannah was in such grief that she was emotional unstable. Even her husband could not comfort her. And he loved her very, very much. He only had the other woman for children's sake.)

~David and Michal (The Bible says that Michal loved David, but doesn't say that he loved her. She risks her own life to save his by pretending that he is in bed while she sneaks him out of the window. The next time she sees him, he has other wives. She is naturally hurt and becomes bitter about it. She should have found contentment in some other part of her life, but she could not. She ended up despising David and was punished for her own pain and the wrong way that she dealt with it.)

~Absolam and his father's concubines (2 Samuel 16:21-22 says that King David's son, Absolam, wanted to make his father look weak and so he was advised to take his father's concubines into a public place and have sex with them so that he could show everyone how much he abhorred his own father.)

~King Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines (Deuteronomy 17:17 said for future kings NOT to multiply their horses nor their wives. Multiplying their horses meant depending on their own military might and multiplying their wives and concubines to themselves, as the Bible says, meant a heart strayed from God. King Solomon didn't even know most of these women. He married them out of treaties made with other nations and villiages to show solidarity together. They were foreign women and brought their gods and pagan worship practices with them into his house and into his kingdom. He didn't care and his own heart strayed from God because of the pagan practices that he sometimes participated in. And when he died, the nation of Israel split in two - Judah and Israel - and Israel suffered for hundreds of years under the rule of wicked, wicked kings who continued pagan practices and would not give them up. The two nations finally were captured and went into exile.)

.................................................. .................................................. .

I do not believe that God "winked" at concubines, multiple marriages, preferred them, required them for human population, nor ignored them.

Many people say, "God didn't punish these people for concubines or multiple marriages so polygamy and pre-marital sex and fornication is OK and not that big of a deal."

I think He did punish them in a way - or at least didn't intervene to help them. He allowed misery to run its course.

Just ask Leah, who lived as a hated woman and Hannah, who could not be consoled.

Just ask King Solomon, who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, and looked back over his own mistakes and was utterly miserable."
http://bibleforums.org/archive/index.php/t-184496.html

I found it interesting in it dovetails with my experience in my own life (no I have never been a concubine ) but that the moral laws are wisdom for those who are wise enough to heed the advice to prevent further misery from the consequences of our actions. The original intent was two halves which make the one whole partnership. Anyone who has had my experiences in life can attest to why using critical judgement is necessary. Having been abused as a child I smh at the side that preaches rape as marriage as they strain a gnat and swallow a camel.

----------


## pcosmar

> I do not believe that God "winked" at concubines, multiple marriages, preferred them, required them for human population, nor ignored them.


I said nothing about that. I said that it was not condemned and that it was widely practiced.

And in many of those references,, there were other factors. Other issues that had nothing to do with  the question of Concubines.

Jealousy and selfishness come to mind. Which in my experience are far more destructive and can exist  (and often do) in monogamous relationships.

Women have been a pain in the side since Eve.. but I still love them.

----------


## moostraks

> I said nothing about that. I said that it was not condemned and that it was widely practiced.
> 
> And in many of those references,, there were other factors. Other issues that had nothing to do with  the question of Concubines.
> 
> Jealousy and selfishness come to mind. Which in my experience are far more destructive and can exist  (and often do) in monogamous relationships.
> 
> Women have been a pain in the side since Eve.. but I still love them.


The sentence you quoted was from the link, not me. My commentary was the paragraph below the link. So are you aware of a positive situation or outcome described regarding this lifestyle? I am asking out of curiosity as again concubines have never been a subject I concerned myself with and so I do not know of one. It seems to be a relationship much like divorce that is contrary to what was described as the ideal by Jesus in Matthew. As for the consequences for which you are describing in the monogamous relationship that would fall into a category imo of being equally yoked to someone with your same beliefs and needs and choosing a spouse wisely. I say this from learning the hard way. My position on the moral standards are really that they are more a matter of wisdom regarding the consequences that occur when one steps outside of these standards. You have to turn the concept of loving your neighbor around and see how the parties in the situation are being harmed by your behavior. I don't think a concubine, who would effectively be a second class spouse, is being treated as one who is being loved and respected but rather demeaned.

----------


## pcosmar

> The sentence you quoted was from the link, not me. My commentary was the paragraph below the link. So are you aware of a positive situation or outcome described regarding this lifestyle? I am asking out of curiosity as again concubines have never been a subject I concerned myself with and so I do not know of one. It seems to be a relationship much like divorce that is contrary to what was described as the ideal by Jesus in Matthew. As for the consequences for which you are describing in the monogamous relationship that would fall into a category imo of being equally yoked to someone with your same beliefs and needs and choosing a spouse wisely. I say this from learning the hard way. My position on the moral standards are really that they are more a matter of wisdom regarding the consequences that occur when one steps outside of these standards. You have to turn the concept of loving your neighbor around and see how the parties in the situation are being harmed by your behavior. I don't think a concubine, who would effectively be a second class spouse, is being treated as one who is being loved and respected but rather demeaned.


I agree with you for the most part.. and am certainly not advocating for the practice.
.. and really my question was based on the whole* Sex=Marriage* issue that some are pushing.

I think they are confused.

----------


## moostraks

> I agree with you for the most part.. and am certainly not advocating for the practice.
> .. and really my question was based on the whole* Sex=Marriage* issue that some are pushing.
> 
> I think they are confused.


Lol on advocating. Figured that was whom it was directed at but I found the concept curious and having run into the comment on the other forum I am wondering if there is any case where it turns out positive but well, wasn't something I could quite turn up on googling for a few minutes as the search parameters were not yielding the results I was looking for and so figured I'd toss it out there in case anyone knows.<~~ (Incidentally holy run on sentence batman!!!!)

----------


## agrammatos

> Oh,, and I do not really expect a serious answer.. 
> 
> Just something for you to try to expand your narrow minds with.
> 
> And Concubines are mentioned throughout the Bible. I have found no condemnation,, and some had a notable place in the story.


One of the common arguments against the truth that sex = marriage is the issue of concubines.  The argument goes something like this:  In the Old Testament, there is a distinction between wives and concubines.  Wives were the women that were married to the man, and concubines were not married to the man, although the man had sex with the concubines.  Thus, sex itself cannot be marriage, because then the concubines would be wives. [I also addressed the concubine issue in my _What Constitutes Marriage?_ article]

The term "wife" (pl. "wives") in the Old Testament doesn't really exist.  The word translated "wife" (pl. "wives") in the Old Testament is the exact same Hebrew word for "woman" (pl. "women").

The Hebrew word that is translated "concubine" is pilegesh.  This is a Hebrew word that is of uncertain derivation.  How did this Hebrew word come to be translated "concubine" in English?  I don't know.  Is it a correct translation?  I can't be certain of that at this point.  The English word "concubine" comes from the Latin concubina (con = together; cumbare = to lie).  Definitions of "concubine" vary.  Some say that it is "a woman who lives with a man and has sexual intercourse with him, without being married to him.a sexual partner."  Yet others say give this definition:  "in polygamous societies: a secondary wife."  Interesting, eh?  Some would say, "if she is described as a concubine in the Bible, then she cannot be a wife."  Yet, considering that the word "wife" is really a man's "woman" in the Old Testament, then this argument would be, "if she is described as a concubine in the Bible, then she cannot be a man's woman."  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? 

Here are some interesting passages:




> "And David came into his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left to guard the house, and fed them. But he did not go in to them, and they were shut up to the day of their death in widowhood." (2 Samuel 20:3)


These are the concubines with whom Absalom had lain, as put forth in 2 Samuel 16:22:  




> "And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in to your father's concubines, [those] he left to keep the house. And all Israel shall hear that you have become odious with your father. And the hands of all who [are] with you will be strong. And they spread out a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father's concubines before the eyes of all Israel."


Two things to note:  (1) After Absalom had lain with them, he never had sexual relations with them again.  (2) They were called widows. Now if you remember, Nathan had prophesied this very thing to David after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba:




> "So says Jehovah, Behold, I shall raise up evil against you out of your house, and shall take your wives before your eyes and give [them] to your neighbor. And he shall lie with your wives in the sight of the sun." (2 Samuel 12:11)


This is a prophecy that Absalom would lie with David's WIVES -- literally, David's WOMEN.  And how was this prophecy fulfilled? By Absalom's lying with David's CONCUBINES.  Thus, we must conclude that David's CONCUBINES were David's WOMEN (WIVES).  Strictly in terms of marriage, there was NO DIFFERENCE between a person's WOMEN (WIVES) and his CONCUBINES.  David was married to his concubines.  They were his women (wives).  All concubines are wives.

But not all wives are concubines.  So what makes a woman a concubine as opposed to the rest of the man's women?  Well, here are some things from the internet on this:





> ==Concubinage is the state of a woman or youth in an ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status. Typically, the man has an official wife and, in addition, one or more concubines. Concubines have limited rights of support from the man, and their offspring are publicly acknowledged as the man's children, albeit of lower status than children born by the official wife or wives; these legal rights distinguish a concubine from a mistress.
> 
> 
> *Concubine
> *
> The term concubine generally signifies ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationships where the woman is of lower social status than the man or the official wife or wives. Some historical Asian and European rulers maintained concubines as well as wives. Historically, concubinage was frequently voluntary (by the girl and/or her family's arrangement), as it provided a measure of economic security for the woman involved. Involuntary, or servile, concubinage sometimes involves sexual slavery of one member of the relationship, typically the woman.
> 
> Where it has a legal status, as in ancient Rome, concubinage is akin, although inferior, to marriage. In opposition to those laws, traditional Western laws do not acknowledge the legal status of concubines, but rather only admit monogamous marriages. Any other relationship does not enjoy legal protection; the woman is necessarily a mistress.
> 
> ...






> ==*Pilegesh* is a Hebrew term for a concubine with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring.
> 
> *Legal characteristics*
> 
> 
> A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her.
> 
> According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a ketubah and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin"), which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the concubine also received a ketubah, but without the aliment pertaining to it. Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his wife.
> 
> ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Personally, I think it speaks against OTC's supposedly "high moral standards" that you guys apparently think polygamy was actually OK in the Old Testament.  Other than the Mormons (who surely don't count as Christians, even to us "tolerant calvinists") I've never heard of anyone other than you interpret the scripture to say that polygamy was actually OK in the Old Testament.  If it was OK then, why isn't it now?  Does morality change?  And when did the standard change?  Why?

BTW: I'd argue that Genesis 2:24 clearly defines monogamy as God's intention from the beginning.

----------


## agrammatos

> Personally, I think it speaks against OTC's supposedly "high moral standards" that you guys apparently think polygamy was actually OK in the Old Testament.


In the Old Testament David (and other OT saints) having multiple wives was not adulterous, but in the New Testament having multiple wives is adulterous. And not only was David's multiple wives not adulterous, God said that He would have given David MORE wives:




> "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things" (2 Samuel 12:8).


God is saying that  David should NOT have taken Bathsheba (Uriah's wife), because if David wanted more wives, God would have given David MORE wives.

David and many of the Old Testament saints had many wives. David was a saved man. The Bible says that no adulterers are saved.  Thus, David was not an adulterer. This means that polygamy in the Old Testament was not adultery, but in the New Testament polygamy is adultery. In observing this clear difference between the Old and the New, it is extremely important to understand that God is the lawgiver, and the lawgiver makes the laws, not the other way around.







> Other than the Mormons (who surely don't count as Christians, even to us "tolerant calvinists")


On the contrary, there are some tolerant Calvinists who would not even judge Mormons lost. The arguments you use to defend some Arminians, they use to defend some Mormons. Interesting how those with significant theological differences can put aside their differences in order to defend the LIE.




> I've never heard of anyone other than you interpret the scripture to say that polygamy was actually OK in the Old Testament.


See 2 Samuel 12:8 and also consider whether or not you believe David and the other OT saints were living lives characterized by sin.




> If it was OK then, why isn't it now?  Does morality change?  And when did the standard change?  Why?


To reiterate: God is the lawgiver, and the lawgiver makes the laws, not the other way around.

----------


## pcosmar

> but in the New Testament polygamy is adultery.


Can you show that?

The only scripture that comes to mind is speaking of Bishops.



> This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
> A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach


A husband of* one wife*. Which leads me to believe that there were some with more than one wife,, which was a common practice then.

I do not know of scripture that forbids the practice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In the Old Testament David (and other OT saints) having multiple wives was not adulterous, but in the New Testament having multiple wives is adulterous. And not only was David's multiple wives not adulterous, God said that He would have given David MORE wives:


I agree that it wasn't adulterous, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sinful. It can be sinful to have multiple wives without being adulterous.





> God is saying that  David should NOT have taken Bathsheba (Uriah's wife), because if David wanted more wives, God would have given David MORE wives.
> 
> David and many of the Old Testament saints had many wives. David was a saved man. The Bible says that no adulterers are saved.  Thus, David was not an adulterer. This means that polygamy in the Old Testament was not adultery, but in the New Testament polygamy is adultery. In observing this clear difference between the Old and the New, it is extremely important to understand that God is the lawgiver, and the lawgiver makes the laws, not the other way around.




OK, so can you show what scripture changed the rule?  I agree with you that God has the right to change the rule, but I'm unaware of any scripture where the rule was actually changed.




> On the contrary, there are some tolerant Calvinists who would not even judge Mormons lost. The arguments you use to defend some Arminians, they use to defend some Mormons. Interesting how those with significant theological differences can put aside their differences in order to defend the LIE.


Well yeah, there are some people who are ridiculously tolerant.  So what?  

That said, I've come to the conclusion that the "perfection of knowledge" argument is an epic strawman in general.  I find it annoying when "tolerant calvinists" use that argument because it can be used to defend literally any heresy under the sun.  On the other hand, I think considering someone unsaved because they think a heretic might be saved is definitely extreme in the other direction.






> See 2 Samuel 12:8 and also consider whether or not you believe David and the other OT saints were living lives characterized by sin.


Christians sin all the time.  We never live up to the perfect standards God has for us.  David may not have known that polygamy was a sin.  I agree with your logical argument that it wasn't adultery, because, (this is one point I believe you guys get correct) there are certain sins a Christian will never commit, and certain sins he will not habitually commit.  Adultery is a sin a Christian will not habitually commit.

----------


## agrammatos

> I am one of those people who believes that spirituality is between the Creator and the individual but when you start pushing an agenda like rapists and pedophiles are now marriage partners to the abused you better be sure I am going to be very clear what type of mindset I think these evolves from those that espouses it. Talk about victimizing the victim. It is disgusting and the individual in question has shown other indications of narcissistic tendencies much like those I have dealt with who harbor a reason to push the sick philosophy.






> FreedomFanatic: Just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the sex = marriage doctrine.



You two need to discover the consequences when people have sex. The best way to do this is to find a verse in the Bible which addresses ONLY the sex act. The verse which addresses only the sex act is I Corinthians 6:16:





> "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, The two will become one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16).



You are NOT appreciating the logical weight and force of the aforecited text.





> “He also represents it to them as a self-evident principle, that he who is joined in affection and criminal conversation to an harlot, is one body with her. 'What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two (saith he) shall be one flesh'" (John Colquhoun, Sermons, chiefly on doctrinal subjects).






> “This question of the apostle’s — Know ye not that he that is joined to an harlot is one body? and what follows, being taken together, have a plain reference to what Adam said, Gen. ii:23, 24. This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, &c. and seems very fully to determine, not only the strictness of the marriage-union, but that which constitutes it in the sight of God. In all which there is not the least hint, or most distant allusion, to any outward rite or ceremony administered by any person whatsoever; but the whole is made to rest simply, and only in the personal union of the man and woman. It is this alone, which, according to the apostle, makes them one flesh” (Abstract Of The Rev. Mr. Madan’s Dissertation On Marriage As A Divine Institution).
> 
> 
> “If the licentious and temporary union with an harlot makes a man become one body and one flesh with her, we may suppose that the sin of fornication receives no small share of its malignity, from the abuse thereby committed of the ordinance of marriage as established by God: as entering into it without any intention of abiding by it, but merely to gratify a transient lust, and that with a woman who departs from one to another, as gain or evil desire may lead her. Nevertheless, the apostle on the authority of Gen. ii. 23, 24, says, that he that is joined to an harlot is one body, and one flesh, with, her, by being engaged in that ordinance, of which these things are declared in the passage referred to, to be made consequent upon it, that they are the inevitable consequences” (Abstract Of The Rev. Mr. Madan’s Dissertation On Marriage As A Divine Institution).



To those who object to the Biblical teaching on marriage, check to see whether your motives are malicious or not. Check to see if the REAL REASON for objecting is not that treacherous fulfillment of transient lust with the first woman of your youth (cf. Malachi 2:14-15). 

Sex alone makes people "one flesh" (I Corinthians 6:16). "One flesh" is the marriage union (Matthew 19:6). Therefore, sex alone makes people married. Malachi 2:14-15  makes the point that God makes the two who have sex become "one" because a covenant has been established.  We know this covenant is not a spoken vow because the threshold to establish this covenant in Malachi 2:14 is met when a man and a harlot have sex (1 Corinthians 6:16). The reason God makes the two become "one" is because sex alone establishes a covenant between the man and the woman with whom he has sex. While sex is only one of the many elements within an ideal marriage, sex alone creates a state of marriage.

Some more Madan quotes on marriage (by the way, I did not discover these quotes until some time after writing my article on What Constitutes Marriage?):





> “From what has been said, it appears, that marriage, as instituted of God, simply consists, as to the essence of it, in the union of the man and woman as one body; for which plain and evident reason, no outward forms or ceremonies of man’s invention can add to or diminish from the effects of this union in the sight of God. What end these things may serve as to civil purposes, I shall not dispute, but I cannot suppose that the matrimonial service in our church, or any other, can make the parties more one flesh in the sight of God, supposing them to have been united, than the burial service can make the corpse over which it is read more dead than it was before. ... Supposing they have not been united, they are not one flesh in the sight of God, by any virtue in the words of the service, any more than a piece of wafer becomes flesh and blood by a popish priest’s consecration. It is not man, but God, which makes the twain one flesh; neither is it man’s ordinance, but God’s institution which brings that to pass” (Abstract Of The Rev. Mr. Madan’s Dissertation On Marriage As A Divine Institution).






> “As to the person celebrating the marriage, the place where, the manner how, it is very certain, that these things are wholly of human invention, and therefore not only various in different parts of the world, but also in the same country. We have amongst us Jews, Papists, Quakers; all these observe an outward form or ceremony different from each other. As for the Church of England, we have differed from ourselves; for the same ceremony which would have constituted a legal marriage before the 16th of the late king, will not do it now, unless certain circumstances, introduced and insisted upon by the act of parliament, be observed. But the all-wise Legislator of the universe hath not left his divine institutions on so vague, so precarious, so uncertain a footing" (Abstract Of The Rev. Mr. Madan’s Dissertation On Marriage As A Divine Institution).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To those who object to the Biblical teaching on marriage, check to see  whether your motives are malicious or not. Check to see if the REAL  REASON for objecting is not that treacherous fulfillment of transient  lust with the first woman of your youth (cf. Malachi 2:14-15).


I have checked my own heart.  If this doctrine were true, it would not negatively effect me at the present time.  It would have dramatic implications for  people who I know well, but it wouldn't have an effect on me.

So, let's quit the "You want to make excuses for yourself" and stick with the logic, OK?

As far as I know, you still haven't answered how it is possible to marry (Under this view of marriage) without sinning.  You also haven't answered how it can be not inherently immoral to have sex with a given woman (If both are regenerate virgins) yet it can be immoral to kiss the same person.

----------


## agrammatos

> I have checked my own heart.  If this doctrine were true, it would not negatively effect me at the present time.  It would have dramatic implications for  people who I know well, but it wouldn't have an effect on me.
> 
> So, let's quit the "You want to make excuses for yourself" and stick with the logic, OK?


You cannot and have not refuted the logic:




> P1) Sex alone makes people "one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16).
> P2) "One flesh" is the marriage union (Matthew 19:6; Genesis 2:24).
> C1) Therefore, sex alone is the marriage union.





> As far as I know, you still haven't answered how it is possible to marry (Under this view of marriage) without sinning. You also haven't answered how it can be not inherently immoral to have sex with a given woman (If both are regenerate virgins) yet it can be immoral to kiss the same person.


Think about how you would answer those same questions under whatever your view of marriage is.

----------


## moostraks

> You two need to discover the consequences when people have sex. The best way to do this is to find a verse in the Bible which addresses ONLY the sex act. The verse which addresses only the sex act is I Corinthians 6:16:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT appreciating the logical weight and force of the aforecited text.
> 
> 
> ...


What was the position on incest again here? Are they also married to their rapists? What if they are sexually abused by numerous people before the age of consent? Have they then committed adultery? Do you have any idea what type of mental damage the rape does does to the sexually abused child? What if they were sexually abused while raised by parents who taught them no religion? Are they also subject to this law that you have constructed and they now must retreat into solitude even if they are married with children? How does this effect the children who will now be raised in single parent households?

----------


## agrammatos

> What was the position on incest again here? Are they also married to their rapists? What if they are sexually abused by numerous people before the age of consent? Have they then committed adultery? Do you have any idea what type of mental damage the rape does does to the sexually abused child? What if they were sexually abused while raised by parents who taught them no religion? Are they also subject to this law that you have constructed and they now must retreat into solitude even if they are married with children? How does this effect the children who will now be raised in single parent households?


The true God whose gospel you hate will judge all fornicators. Things like rape, sexual abuse, etc., are all transgressions against God's law of marriage (cf. Hebrews 13:4). The true Christian who has been abused in such a way as to meet the clear criteria of 1 Corinthians 6:16 will out of loving obedience to God, remain celibate (i.e., unmarried) for the rest of his or her days.




> "And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery. His disciples said to Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But He said to them, Not all make room for this Word, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. He who is able to receive, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:9-12).

----------


## moostraks

> The true God whose gospel you hate will judge all fornicators. Things like rape, sexual abuse, etc., are all transgressions against God's law of marriage (cf. Hebrews 13:4). The true Christian who has been abused in such a way as to meet the clear criteria of 1 Corinthians 6:16 will out of loving obedience to God, remain celibate (i.e., unmarried) for the rest of his or her days.



You skipped over the issue of whether the abused was married (again in your opinion) with children by another man. So what happens then?

----------


## moostraks

> The true God whose gospel you hate will judge all fornicators. Things like rape, sexual abuse, etc., are all transgressions against God's law of marriage (cf. Hebrews 13:4). The true Christian who has been abused in such a way as to meet the clear criteria of 1 Corinthians 6:16 will out of loving obedience to God, remain celibate (i.e., unmarried) for the rest of his or her days.


So the abused is the prostitute or the abuser is? Does the abused become a prostitute once they have sex with someone else?

----------


## agrammatos

> So the abused is the prostitute or the abuser is? Does the abused become a prostitute once they have sex with someone else?


Regarding the word "prostitute": _Porne_ is the Greek word translated in I Corinthians 6:16, as "harlot," but it does not refer exclusively to an individual who takes money for sex. Instead, it refers to any woman who is even inclined toward promiscuity. She doesn't have to actually be promiscuous, and she doesn't have to take money for sex.

Your other questions are ignorant and unlearned. Please rephrase.

----------


## moostraks

> Regarding the word "prostitute": _Porne_ is the Greek word translated in I Corinthians 6:16, as "harlot," but it does not refer exclusively to an individual who takes money for sex. Instead, it refers to any woman who is even inclined toward promiscuity. She doesn't have to actually be promiscuous, and she doesn't have to take money for sex.
> 
> Your other questions are ignorant and unlearned. Please rephrase.


I wasn't hung up on the word prostitute. Call them a whore. That is what you are stating so don't beat around the bush. Is the child a whore who is forced into sex with numerous people at the time she has been forced? There is no grey area here so let us be very clear on this doctrine. Sex is marriage so shall we be clear the acts with others after the first make them a whore?

No, the questions are direct and you are avoiding them. Please answer. It is illuminating as to the manner of ignorance you have to the life of someone who has been abused. No re-phrasing. Answer the questions asked or not and others can judged whether it is your cowardice or my ignorance.

oh and promiscuity pro·mis·cu·i·ty noun \ˌprä-mə-ˈskyü-ə-tē, ˌprō-\
plural pro·mis·cu·i·ties

Definition of PROMISCUITY

1
:  miscellaneous mingling or selection of persons or things 

So are you referring to the abused person or the abuser being a whore? What is your level of child psychology experience regarding the effects of sex abuse?

----------


## agrammatos

> I wasn't hung up on the word prostitute. Call them a whore. That is what you are stating so don't beat around the bush. Is the child a whore who is forced into sex with numerous people at the time she has been forced? There is no grey area here so let us be very clear on this doctrine. Sex is marriage so shall we be clear the acts with others after the first make them a whore?
> 
> No, the questions are direct and you are avoiding them. Please answer. It is illuminating as to the manner of ignorance you have to the life of someone who has been abused. No re-phrasing. Answer the questions asked or not and others can judged whether it is your cowardice or my ignorance.
> 
> oh and promiscuity pro·mis·cu·i·ty noun \ˌprä-mə-ˈskyü-ə-tē, ˌprō-\
> plural pro·mis·cu·i·ties
> 
> Definition of PROMISCUITY
> 
> ...


My level of child psychology knowledge is probably higher than you think, but it does not trump truth. Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon. That did not make her a whore. That was NOT the point of citing 1 Corinthians 6:16. The POINT of citing 1 Corinthians 6:16 was to CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE what happens when two people have sexual intercourse. Amnon committed fornication when he forced this ONE FLESH union upon Tamar. Go read how this woman responded to this sexual abuse (2 Samuel 13).

----------


## moostraks

> My level of child psychology knowledge is probably higher than you think, but it does not trump truth. Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon. That did not make her a whore. That was NOT the point of citing 1 Corinthians 6:16. The POINT of citing 1 Corinthians 6:16 was to CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE what happens when two people have sexual intercourse. Amnon committed fornication when he forced this ONE FLESH union upon Tamar. Go read how this woman responded to this sexual abuse (2 Samuel 13).


1-This didn't answer the questions I asked.
2-Why did Tamar do this? Culturally why did Tamar do this?
3-Child psychology regarding abuse victims

----------


## agrammatos

> 1-This didn't answer the questions I asked.
> 2-Why did Tamar do this? Culturally why did Tamar do this?
> 3-Child psychology regarding abuse victims


Regarding 1. Yes it did. The example of Tamar being sexually abused was the answer. 
Regarding 2. Does the Biblical text answer those questions?
Regarding 3. You have no clue who I've talked to or what I know. True Christians who have been affected by the type of sexual abuse that forms a one flesh union (1 Corinthians 6:16) will remain celibate like Tamar appears to have done.

----------


## agrammatos

> So the abused is the prostitute or the abuser is? Does the abused become a prostitute once they have sex with someone else?





> "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Then taking the members of Christ, shall I make them members of a harlot? Let it not be! Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, The two shall be into one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:15-16).


Your questions are akin to the following:




> So the abused is the ignorant First Corinthian dude or the abuser is? Does the abused become an ignorant First Corinthian dude once they have sex with someone else?


Huh?

The raping of Tamar did NOT make her become a whore any more than it made her become the ignorant First Corinthian dude. What it DID do was force a marriage upon her (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16). 




> "And she brought near to him to eat. And he lay hold on her, and said to her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she said to him, No, my brother, do not humble me, for it is not done so in Israel. Do not do this foolishness. And I, where should I cause my disgrace to go? And you, you shall be as one of the fools in Israel. But now, please speak to the king; for he shall not withhold me from you. But he was not willing to listen to her voice. And he was stronger than she, and humbled her, and lay with her. And Amnon hated her with a very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, Get up and go!  And she said to him, No, for this evil is greater than the other that you have done to me, to send me away. But he was not willing to listen to her. And he called his young man who attended him, and said, Now put this one out from me, and bolt the door after her. And a long tunic was on her, for so the virgin daughters of the king usually dressed. And his attendant brought her robes outside, and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore the long tunic on her, and put her hand on her head, and left; going on and crying out. And her brother Absalom said to her, Has your brother Amnon been with you? But now, my sister, keep silent. He is your brother. Do not set your heart on this thing. And Tamar lived in the house of her brother Absalom, but she was desolate" (2 Samuel 13:11-20).

----------


## moostraks

> Regarding 1. Yes it did. The example of Tamar being sexually abused was the answer. 
> Regarding 2. Does the Biblical text answer those questions?
> Regarding 3. You have no clue who I've talked to or what I know. True Christians who have been affected by the type of sexual abuse that forms a one flesh union (1 Corinthians 6:16) will remain celibate like Tamar appears to have done.



1-So the abused is the prostitute or the abuser is? 
2-Sex is marriage so shall we be clear the acts with others after the first make the child a whore?
3-Is the child a whore who is forced into sex with numerous people at the time she has been forced?
4-You skipped over the issue of whether the abused was married (again in your opinion) with children by another man. So what happens then?
5-Luke 12:45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. Let us make a new law for chopping up workers who have pissed off their bosses. This is what it means, no?
6-So cute. You think that incest occurs in Christian households where purity is taught.

----------


## moostraks

> Your questions are akin to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?


No, because you are the one who is proof texting random verses with no context to whom you are applying them to. So I am the one who initially asked to whom was the verse of the whore regarding, the bastard who took someone's purity or the abuse victim who should dare to have any life after having their purity taken from them BY FORCE!!!

----------


## moostraks

> The raping of Tamar did NOT make her become a whore any more than it made her become the ignorant First Corinthian dude. What it DID do was force a marriage upon her (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).


Nice edit AFTER I pointed out you were not giving context...

What was the context of the environment for Tamar having this occur? Do you have any compassion for why she sought the solution she did? So shall we turn Luke 12:45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. into a new law? 

This is why the individual is told to seek Church council. The invention of loveless doctrine by the ignorant so that abusive individuals can corrupt Love and claim it is Biblical is why one is in a precarious condition outside of the mentorship of those who have held true to the Truth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You cannot and have not refuted the logic:


I've pointed you to John 4:18 and Malachi 2:14, both of which contradict your view.  But my point in referencing logic was simply a request to stop accusing me of rejecting your doctrine because of something I have not actually done.







> Think about how you would answer those same questions under whatever your view of marriage is.


I actually have two issues in mind here.  I may be falsely assuming, so let me clarify, do you agree with Marc Carpenter when he says that anyone who has any form of heterosexual attraction without being married to them?

Assuming you do, your view of marriage is literally, in order to avoid sinning, one must have sexual intercourse with one's future spouse without being attracted to them in order to marry them without sinning (Assuming both parties are regenerate, I understand that if either party is unregenerate you would say the relation is sinful regardless).  Is this correct?

I'm not sure my view of marriage, which involves a couple vowing to stay together for life in front of witnesses, would relate to this question at all.  I'm not sure the question comes up in my view of marriage.

----------


## Christian Liberty

To add another question which I think was asked but didn't see an answer for: If a married woman is raped, is she required to separate from her husband since she is now "married" twice?

----------


## agrammatos

> Nice edit AFTER I pointed out you were not giving context...
> 
> What was the context of the environment for Tamar having this occur? Do you have any compassion for why she sought the solution she did? So shall we turn Luke 12:45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. into a new law? 
> 
> This is why the individual is told to seek Church council. The invention of loveless doctrine by the ignorant so that abusive individuals can corrupt Love and claim it is Biblical is why one is in a precarious condition outside of the mentorship of those who have held true to the Truth.


The context of this entire thread and the context of 1 Corinthians 6:16 was CLEAR even BEFORE my edit. The fact that you refer to 1 Corinthians 6:16 as _"the verse of the whore"_ shows that you were completely missing Paul's point. The clear point of the passage all by its lonesome is about what happens when two people have sex. THAT'S IT. You went off the rails, focusing on who is and is not a whore. That is CLEARLY NOT what 1 Corinthians 6:16 is talking about. I think you are probably the only one who did not understand Paul's FOCUS there.

----------


## agrammatos

> To add another question which I think was asked but didn't see an answer for: If a married woman is raped, is she required to separate from her husband since she is now "married" twice?


Where is that post of yours saying that OTC condones maintaining and nurturing an adulterous marriage union? I think that assertion is related to your question here, correct?

----------


## agrammatos

> I've pointed you to John 4:18 and Malachi 2:14, both of which contradict your view.  But my point in referencing logic was simply a request to stop accusing me of rejecting your doctrine because of something I have not actually done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have two issues in mind here.  I may be falsely assuming, so let me clarify, do you agree with Marc Carpenter when he says that anyone who has any form of heterosexual attraction without being married to them?
> 
> ...


I have answered John 4:18 in my marriage article. I answered Malachi very recently on this forum and also in my marriage article. Perhaps you missed this (I think I wrote it earlier today):




> Malachi 2:14-15 makes the point that God makes the two who have sex become "one" because a covenant has been established. We know this covenant is not a spoken vow because the threshold to establish this covenant in Malachi 2:14 is met when a man and a harlot have sex (1 Corinthians 6:16). The reason God makes the two become "one" is because sex alone establishes a covenant between the man and the woman with whom he has sex. While sex is only one of the many elements within an ideal marriage (lifelong bond), sex alone creates (initiates) a state of marriage.

----------


## moostraks

> The context of this entire thread and the context of 1 Corinthians 6:16 was CLEAR even BEFORE my edit. The fact that you refer to 1 Corinthians 6:16 as _"the verse of the whore"_ shows that you were completely missing Paul's point. The clear point of the passage all by its lonesome is about what happens when two people have sex. THAT'S IT. You went off the rails, focusing on who is and is not a whore. That is CLEARLY NOT what 1 Corinthians 6:16 is talking about. I think you are probably the only one who did not understand Paul's FOCUS there.


No it wasn't clear until you stated such and you still haven't answered the other points I brought up. Must be nice to live in such a fine glass house as yours.

Eta and in context of what you are trying to prove it is quite intrinsic to the argument whom you were referring to here as the victim laying down with the whore (abuser) is a slightly different context. Now, see, you argue from a legal stand point with no knowledge of the life of the victim and have passed judgement and formed inventive laws. He will judge knowing the heart and all circumstances. Your fate is in your own hands right now with your loveless legalistic doctrine you will be judged. Pleasure yourself with that seething contempt you have for the sinners who fail to abide by your loveless laws because your fire shall consume you.

Waiting patiently for your educated response to my other questions.

----------


## agrammatos

> No, because you are the one who is proof texting random verses with no context to whom you are applying them to. So I am the one who initially asked to whom was the verse of the whore regarding, the bastard who took someone's purity or the abuse victim who should dare to have any life after having their purity taken from them BY FORCE!!!


Another common objection is one that appeals to emotional and hysterical sensationalism rather than to the Word of God. The objection put forth is that if a young Christian virgin woman was engaged (betrothed), and during this betrothal period was brutally assaulted and raped, then she would have to break off the engagement with her "husband-to-be" and go ahead and marry and perform all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife towards the man who brutally raped her. The betrothed woman has indeed been made one flesh with the man who so violently and brutally forced this one-flesh union upon her. Amnon, likewise, violently forced himself upon Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-20). Scripture says that she remained desolate. Tamar, just like the betrothed woman put forth in the objection, was the innocent victim of a vicious crime. The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted rapist. She is, however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate for the rest of her days or until the rapist dies (Romans 7:1-3). Those who make this and similar unbiblically emotional appeals would show hatred to this poor woman by adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's.

----------


## moostraks

> Another common objection is one that appeals to emotional and hysterical sensationalism rather than to the Word of God. The objection put forth is that if a young Christian virgin woman was engaged (betrothed), and during this betrothal period was brutally assaulted and raped, then she would have to break off the engagement with her "husband-to-be" and go ahead and marry and perform all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife towards the man who brutally raped her. The betrothed woman has indeed been made one flesh with the man who so violently and brutally forced this one-flesh union upon her. Amnon, likewise, violently forced himself upon Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-20). Scripture says that she remained desolate. Tamar, just like the betrothed woman put forth in the objection, was the innocent victim of a vicious crime. The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted rapist. She is, however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate for the rest of her days or until the rapist dies (Romans 7:1-3). Those who make this and similar unbiblically emotional appeals would show hatred to this poor woman by adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's.


So you get to make up new marriage rules too? Since when does a spouse not have a duty to perform spousal obligations? Hey boss, waiting for the edict for business owners to chop up wayward employees. Yay or nay? Why or why not?

----------


## moostraks

Jonah 3:6When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:

“By the decree of the king and his nobles:

Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

10When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

Jonah’s Anger at the Lord’s Compassion

1But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6Then the Lord God provided a leafy planta and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

9But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

10But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?

----------


## agrammatos

> So you get to make up new marriage rules too? Since when does a spouse not have a duty to perform spousal obligations?


Ummm. Lemme see here. Huh. Eh, probably when a spouse is the ignorant 1 Corinthian dude cavorting with a hooker. Paul said to "flee fornication" in 1 Corinthians 6:18. But he can't do that since he'll be accused of obeying "new marriage rules" and will be forced to swallow moostrak's _reductio_ and begin chopping up wayward employees. Oh, well. I suppose he'll just have to be inconsistent and flee fornication while allowing the workers to live.




> Hey boss, waiting for the edict for business owners to chop up wayward employees. Yay or nay? Why or why not?


"And Peter said to Him, Lord, do You speak this parable to us, or also to all? And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward whom the Lord will set over his house servants, to give the portion of food in season? Blessed is that slave when his Lord comes and will find him so doing. Truly I say to you, He will set him over all His possessions. But if that slave should say in his heart, My Lord delays to come, and should begin to beat the men servants and the female servants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk, the Lord of that slave will come in the day in which he does not expect, and in an hour which he does not know. And He will cut him apart and will put his portion with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:41-46).


"But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). 


"Or are you ignorant, brothers, (for I speak to those knowing Law), that the Law lords it over the man for as long a time as he lives? For the married woman was bound by Law to the living husband; but if the husband dies, she is set free from the Law of the husband. So then, if the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if the husband dies, she is free from the Law, so as for her not to be an adulteress by becoming another man's" (Romans 7:1-3). 


Is it just me, or is moostraks extremely THICK?

----------


## moostraks

> Ummm. Lemme see here. Huh. Eh, probably when a spouse is the ignorant 1 Corinthian dude cavorting with a hooker. Paul said to "flee fornication" in 1 Corinthians 6:18. But he can't do that since he'll be accused of obeying "new marriage rules" and will be forced to swallow moostrak's _reductio_ and begin chopping up wayward employees. Oh, well. I suppose he'll just have to be inconsistent and flee fornication while allowing the workers to live.
> 
> 
> 
> "And Peter said to Him, Lord, do You speak this parable to us, or also to all? And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward whom the Lord will set over his house servants, to give the portion of food in season? Blessed is that slave when his Lord comes and will find him so doing. Truly I say to you, He will set him over all His possessions. But if that slave should say in his heart, My Lord delays to come, and should begin to beat the men servants and the female servants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk, the Lord of that slave will come in the day in which he does not expect, and in an hour which he does not know. And He will cut him apart and will put his portion with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:41-46).
> 
> 
> "But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). 
> 
> ...


It ain't me who's thick: 1Corinthians 7:4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where is that post of yours saying that OTC condones maintaining and nurturing an adulterous marriage union? I think that assertion is related to your question here, correct?


I didn't actually say that, although I know there's something on the OTC website that says two "married" adults who find themselves in an adulterous situation "Do not necessarily have to live in separate places."  I know of no evangelical Protestant that would be OK with this type of relationship, and its really something that's asking for trouble.

If I need to dig through the rubbish and find the quote (Admittedly, I'm not certain whether it was you or Marc who said it) from OTC I can do that.

Aside from that, the question is not related.

Scenario:

1. Christian (regenerate, per your standards) virgin man sleeps with Christian (see previous note) virgin woman.  They are now married.

2. Two years later, a rapist rapes the woman.

3. Are the woman and man now required to cease marital relations with each other?




> I have answered John 4:18 in my marriage article. I answered Malachi very recently on this forum and also in my marriage article. Perhaps you missed this (I think I wrote it earlier today):


I know you answered it.  I wasn't really satisfied with the answer, and I think you're going with a verse of ambiguous meaning over clearer verses that contradict your view.




> Another common objection is one that appeals to emotional and hysterical sensationalism rather than to the Word of God. The objection put forth is that if a young Christian virgin woman was engaged (betrothed), and during this betrothal period was brutally assaulted and raped, then she would have to break off the engagement with her "husband-to-be" and go ahead and marry and perform all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife towards the man who brutally raped her. The betrothed woman has indeed been made one flesh with the man who so violently and brutally forced this one-flesh union upon her. Amnon, likewise, violently forced himself upon Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-20). Scripture says that she remained desolate. Tamar, just like the betrothed woman put forth in the objection, was the innocent victim of a vicious crime. The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted rapist. She is, however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate for the rest of her days or until the rapist dies (Romans 7:1-3). Those who make this and similar unbiblically emotional appeals would show hatred to this poor woman by adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's.


Why does 1 Corinthians 7:5 not apply in the case of rape?



> So you get to make up new marriage rules too? Since when does a spouse not have a duty to perform spousal obligations?


Just out of curiosity, a question for you: If someone was legitimately married by whatever standard you deem fitting, and this man then became a child abuser, would you agree that the woman does not have a moral obligation to fulfill spousal obligations in that instance?



> Hey boss, waiting for the edict for business owners to chop up wayward employees. Yay or nay? Why or why not?


This is a strawman.  I know that you find agrammatos' point repulsive, but let's stick to logic.



> Ummm. Lemme see here. Huh. Eh, probably when a spouse is the ignorant 1 Corinthian dude cavorting with a hooker. Paul said to "flee fornication" in 1 Corinthians 6:18. But he can't do that since he'll be accused of obeying "new marriage rules" and will be forced to swallow moostrak's _reductio_ and begin chopping up wayward employees. Oh, well. I suppose he'll just have to be inconsistent and flee fornication while allowing the workers to live.
> 
> 
> 
> "And Peter said to Him, Lord, do You speak this parable to us, or also to all? And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward whom the Lord will set over his house servants, to give the portion of food in season? Blessed is that slave when his Lord comes and will find him so doing. Truly I say to you, He will set him over all His possessions. But if that slave should say in his heart, My Lord delays to come, and should begin to beat the men servants and the female servants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk, the Lord of that slave will come in the day in which he does not expect, and in an hour which he does not know. And He will cut him apart and will put his portion with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:41-46).
> 
> 
> "But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32).


What is your interpretation of Matthew 5:32?  Does Matthew 5:32 allow divorce and remarriage in the case of fornication?  Why or why not?




> "Or are you ignorant, brothers, (for I speak to those knowing Law), that the Law lords it over the man for as long a time as he lives? For the married woman was bound by Law to the living husband; but if the husband dies, she is set free from the Law of the husband. So then, if the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if the husband dies, she is free from the Law, so as for her not to be an adulteress by becoming another man's" (Romans 7:1-3).


In the rape example, do you support killing the rapist in order to free the woman?  Why or why not?



> Is it just me, or is moostraks extremely THICK?


Is there any particular reason to call names?  I tend to think you're both unregenerate, but I don't think calling names on either side is really helpful, even if I, being a sinful man, fall into it.  The difference, I think, is that you and Marc seem to actually think you have a right to call people names; I do not claim such.

----------


## moostraks

> I didn't actually say that, although I know there's something on the OTC website that says two "married" adults who find themselves in an adulterous situation "Do not necessarily have to live in separate places."  I know of no evangelical Protestant that would be OK with this type of relationship, and its really something that's asking for trouble.
> 
> If I need to dig through the rubbish and find the quote (Admittedly, I'm not certain whether it was you or Marc who said it) from OTC I can do that.
> 
> Aside from that, the question is not related.
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> 1. Christian (regenerate, per your standards) virgin man sleeps with Christian (see previous note) virgin woman.  They are now married.
> ...


Addressing the two points you made to me:
1-I do not believe, despite your not liking the argument, it is a strawman as it is taking a passage from the Bible, just as he has, and on its face, just as he has argued,  making an argument to employ it, just as he has, based upon a strict and literal reading of the verses in question, just as he has. I want a legitimate response on why it is not reasonable to argue for every verse to be used the same way as those who form a loveless doctrine on selective passages but yet blind their eyes to certain other passages. This is NO different then you saying you disagree with the OTC view of of a literal 7 days and complaining about them wasting time ridiculing you. Why shouldn't I form an equally absurd argument from the same literature and be even more intolerant and in no way whatsoever am I contradicting the verses in question? 

The reason for not using the passage as I put forth is because no one would reasonably think one should use those passages in a literal fashion.It is not seen through the lens of one who looks through the eyes of the Holy Spirit with love to make such a law as I proposed. So now how should this reflect on the issue of Tamar? Well, because the whole argument regarding Tamar wanting to marry her abuser must be seen within the context of the culture to which she existed and then one must understand that the current culture we live in does not mean a woman is chattel or unmarriagable and that rape/incest is known to be psychologically destructive to the abused so a loving church response is not found by making the abused property of their abuser.

2-If the spouse committed child abuse do you think he/she has been unfaithful? What is the response one is allowed when their spouse has been unfaithful?
Matthew 5:32
32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Of course, now I could be as absurd as some arguments I have seen proposed on this forum and elsewhere divorce only applies to men and if you are a woman you are screwed and must stay married. Shall I go there, and if I did would you say it is a strawman to the response I gave you?

Again, this is why the individual is warned to not using their own unique perspective to make new laws outside of the historic positions of the church. The Reformation opened a whole can of worms that has brought us the loveless doctrines we see espoused by folks like OTC.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Addressing the two points you made to me:
> 1-I do not believe, despite your not liking the argument, it is a strawman as it is taking a passage from the Bible, just as he has, and on its face, just as he has argued,  making an argument to employ it, just as he has, based upon a strict and literal reading of the verses in question, just as he has.


The strawman is not the doctrine he believes, but the assumption that those who are arguing against this doctrine would be adulterers if it was true.  At least in my case, this is not the case.



> I want a legitimate response on why it is not reasonable to argue for every verse to be used the same way as those who form a loveless doctrine on selective passages but yet blind their eyes to certain other passages



I'm not sure I understand your argument.  I assume you are implying that this is what Calvinists do.  But this is not the case.




> This is NO different then you saying you disagree with the OTC view of of a literal 7 days and complaining about them wasting time ridiculing you.


I didn't say that I disagreed with them on a literal 7 day creation.  I don't actually know.  I disagree with them on that issue being a gospel issue.  It is not.



> Why shouldn't I form an equally absurd argument from the same literature and be even more intolerant and in no way whatsoever am I contradicting the verses in question?


If the only standard is "not contradicting" the verses in question, go nuts.  I'd love to see your attempt to spoof OTC, as it reads like a spoof anyway sometimes.  That might actually be kind of funny.  But that aside, I'm not sure what your point is.  You are trying to use OTC's ridiculous conclusions to discredit sola scriptura, but it does not.



> The reason for not using the passage as I put forth is because no one would reasonably think one should use those passages in a literal fashion.It is not seen through the lens of one who looks through the eyes of the Holy Spirit with love to make such a law as I proposed. So now how should this reflect on the issue of Tamar? Well, because the whole argument regarding Tamar wanting to marry her abuser must be seen within the context of the culture to which she existed and then one must understand that the current culture we live in does not mean a woman is chattel or unmarriagable and that rape/incest is known to be psychologically destructive to the abused so a loving church response is not found by making the abused property of their abuser.


To be fair to agrammatos, he is not proposing that a raped woman be forced to live with her rapist.  He is proposing that such a person remain celibate.  I agree that this is still somewhat ridiculous, but not monstrous in the way you are proposing.

As for Tamar, it seems obvious to me: non-virgins were not generally marriageable in that day anyway.  It has nothing to do with sex forming a marital union, whether this is in fact true or not.



> 2-If the spouse committed child abuse do you think he/she has been unfaithful?


Nope.




> What is the response one is allowed when their spouse has been unfaithful?
> Matthew 5:32
> 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


OK?



> Of course, now I could be as absurd as some arguments I have seen proposed on this forum and elsewhere divorce only applies to men and if you are a woman you are screwed and must stay married. Shall I go there, and if I did would you say it is a strawman to the response I gave you?


I think its fair to assume that the same that applies to men applies to women as well.  I'm not necessarily convinced that the Matthew passage is allowing anyone to divorce and remarry, but that's a whole different can of worms.



> Again, this is why the individual is warned to not using their own unique perspective to make new laws outside of the historic positions of the church. The Reformation opened a whole can of worms that has brought us the loveless doctrines we see espoused by folks like OTC.




As annoying as they are, OTC gets a heck of a lot more Biblical doctrine correct than you do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Another question for Chris Duncan (Agrammatos):

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/matequest.htm

There are 105 questions here.  I'm not sure if this was written by you or Marc, but it probably doesn't matter (I assume Marc is the author, since no author is mentioned.)  On some of these questions, it is fairly obvious to me what answer OTC is looking for, but not all of them.

My question is this, do you believe that a Christian should ONLY marry someone who has correct answers to all 105 of these questions?  Or would you consider some of them to be good things to discuss yet not essentials for a God-pleasing marriage?  (As  always, assume all parties are regenerate.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

Here is the article by which I make my point that its impossible for anyone to marry without sinning in OTC's view of marriage:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterosexual.htm

So if:

1. Sex = marriage

2. One will inevitably be sexually attracted to a person before having sex with them.

Thus:

3. One will inevitably be sexually attracted to a person before they are married to them.

4. Sexual attraction outside of marriage is always sin.

Thus:

5. It is impossible to get married without sinning under the OTC view, even if both parties are Christians.

So, Chris, where's the error in my logic?

----------


## agrammatos

> Here is the article by which I make my point that its impossible for anyone to marry without sinning in OTC's view of marriage:
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterosexual.htm
> 
> So if:
> 
> 1. Sex = marriage
> 
> 2. One will inevitably be sexually attracted to a person before having sex with them.
> 
> ...


The error in your logic is that your conclusion does not follow. It's sometimes referred to as a _non sequitur_. Please go read the Biblical accounts of Isaac and Rebekah and Joseph and Mary while thoughtfully considering the meaning of "outside of marriage."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The error in your logic is that your conclusion does not follow. It's sometimes referred to as a _non sequitur_. Please go read the Biblical accounts of Isaac and Rebekah and Joseph and Mary while thoughtfully considering the meaning of "outside of marriage."


I've read the stuff about Isaac, Rebekah, and Joseph (Do you mean Jacob?  Ultimately it doesn't matter since I'm currently reading through Genesis and am almost through.)  I'm nonetheless uncertain of what I'm missing.  Please enlighten me.

----------


## agrammatos

> I've read the stuff about Isaac, Rebekah, and Joseph (Do you mean Jacob?  Ultimately it doesn't matter since I'm currently reading through Genesis and am almost through.)  I'm nonetheless uncertain of what I'm missing.  Please enlighten me.


A dull-witted chap, you are. Here's Isaac and Rebekah "sinning under the OTC view": Genesis 24:67 (cf. Genesis 29:23, 30).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A dull-witted chap, you are.


Is this helpful?  I can understand these types of insults to someone who is currently attacking you, but I'm seriously just asking questions here.  Why the need for the insults?


> Here's Isaac and Rebekah "sinning under the OTC view": Genesis 24:67 (cf. Genesis 29:23, 30).


I don't think you understand my issue.  Unless I misread, Marc Carpenter teaches that sex = marriage, and that sexual attraction outside of marriage is a sin.  Are either of these things inaccurate?  If not, none of the people you mention would actually have been married before they had sex, so to have sexual attraction toward each other (even if they did so immediately before having sex) before that point would be sinful.  The only way I could see around this is if sexual attraction towards someone you "intend to marry" were considered different than sexual attraction toward someone else.  I saw no indication that Marc teaches anything like this, but of course I'm the "dull-witted" one so I could definitely be missing something.

----------


## Nang

An observation from someone who has been around a long time:

Marc Carpentar used to be a champion for grace, but has been drug down by self-emposed and *unnecessary* legalism.

His younger witness has been restricted to the point of perversion, which has probably robbed him of much peace.

Minions who encouraged his attempts to find holy exactness in man, have done him no favors.

----------

