• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

You do not have the right to get married...

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
...or so says the Pope...

"No one can make a claim to the right to a nuptial ceremony,"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41207582/ns ... ws-europe/

My first thought was "What right does the Pope have to tell people that they may not have the right?"

Do we not all have the "right" to legitimize a marriage union with a ceremony?
 
what right does the pope have to be the pope?
 
I think he was only talking to Roman Catholics. However, who does he think he is, even with Catholics, divine like God? Oh, I answered my own question there. I think ceremonies are more celebration anyway as God joins together. But most seem to want more than that.
 
welltan said:
I think he was only talking to Roman Catholics. However, who does he think he is, even with Catholics, divine like God? Oh, I answered my own question there. I think ceremonies are more celebration anyway as only God can legitimize a marriage. But most seem to want more than that.
Click to expand...

Very good point brother. Too many people - even in the polygyny community - make the ceremony the legitimizing of the union. Scripture seems to point out by example, at least, that the ceremony was actually a post-matrimonial celebration.
 
It looks like one route could be if we follow the life of Christ to his bride something like this:

Election (election/choice/arrangement)
Sacrifice (setting aside self)
Indwelling (itimate union)
Public Union/Ceremony in heaven (public ceremony or declaration)

That clearly contrasts the Roman system.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
It looks like one route could be if we follow the life of Christ to his bride something like this:

Election (election/choice/arrangement)
Sacrifice (setting aside self)
Indwelling (itimate union)
Public Union/Ceremony in heaven (public ceremony or declaration)

That clearly contrasts the Roman system.
Click to expand...
interesting that you would see the indwelling as the intimacy, before the ceremony.
you appear to assume that the intimacy will not be much greater after we have joined him in his Fathers house, if i understand you correctly.
by intimate union, i am assuming you are saying sexual union.
 
Steve the question you have asked, at least for your understanding of it, depends upon whether or not you believe the Holy Spirit to be Jesus Christ in the Spirit (Romans 8:1-17)? In your theology do you see the Holy Spirit as truly being one member of the Godhead? If not then the indwelling is disconnected from the true presence of Christ because of bifurcation in the doctrine. But if the Spirit is Christ then at what point does the Spirit indwell a person?

It also depends upon whether or not you believe in the doctrine of the present form of the kingdom yet also a future aspect of the kingdom to come. How do you view that?

It also depends upon whether or not you think Christ is still in his physical body and thus he is limited to one place at one time. If he is limited to one place at one time, due to his physical incarnation, then the Spirit is the key to the life here and the fullness of life there.

Combining those three points together we arrive at the idea that the indwelling of the Spirit is indeed a vivifying presence that is progressive and culminates in glorification. This would be linked to the doctrine of progressive sanctification. So is the union stronger in the future than in the beginning? Well, does true love grow fuller and fuller over time when it is the perfect love of the Lord? I would think our experience of it builds from here into eternity and forever more.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Steve the question you have asked, at least for your understanding of it, depends upon whether or not you believe the Holy Spirit to be Jesus Christ in the Spirit (Romans 8:1-17)? In your theology do you see the Holy Spirit as truly being one member of the Godhead? If not then the indwelling is disconnected from the true presence of Christ because of bifurcation in the doctrine. But if the Spirit is Christ then at what point does the Spirit indwell a person?

It also depends upon whether or not you believe in the doctrine of the present form of the kingdom yet also a future aspect of the kingdom to come. How do you view that?

It also depends upon whether or not you think Christ is still in his physical body and thus he is limited to one place at one time. If he is limited to one place at one time, due to his physical incarnation, then the Spirit is the key to the life here and the fullness of life there.

Combining those three points together we arrive at the idea that the indwelling of the Spirit is indeed a vivifying presence that is progressive and culminates in glorification. This would be linked to the doctrine of progressive sanctification. So is the union stronger in the future than in the beginning? Well, does true love grow fuller and fuller over time when it is the perfect love of the Lord? I would think our experience of it builds from here into eternity and forever more.
Click to expand...
no, it does not depend on.............
the questions were pretty plain
 
Hummm, I thought I asked you the questions there about who is the Spirit and about the time at which the Spirit indwelt someone? How you answer that determines the answer to your own question.
 
however you want to parse it, you seem to be teaching that the marriage for which polygany is a type has the equivalant of the sexual union before the public ceremony.

i do not think that i can state it much plainer than that.
 
however you want to parse it, you seem to be teaching that the marriage for which polygany is a type has the equivalant of the sexual union before the public ceremony.
Click to expand...
A lot of this issue is determined by our understanding of what constitutes marriage. Is it the commitment/union or the ceremony? For years, in my ignorance, I searched the scripture for the perfect ceremony to use in weddings. Doomed to failure, there are no marriage ceremonies in the Bible. Neither, pastor, priest nor patriarch has the authority to declare someone wed or not. Ceremonies do not make a couple wed. In the Bible, there were feasts and celebrations comemorating a wedding, some before the union and some after, and some with no noted feast at all. Jacob consumated his wedding with Leah after the day of feasting, with no mention of a celebration with the Rachael wedding. It probably occurred, similar to Leah's, but we are not told. Isaac, however, made Rebekkah his wife before there was any celebration or public recognition.

One of the problems we encounter on this forum is that, we so desire to be honest and correct in our theology and behavior, we forget to notice there may often be more than one correct answer. If God's Word does not CLEARLY say, it is this way, then we are duty bound by love and graciousness to give others a little wiggle room.
 
Did not Welltan and Dapastor both above present that position as well? God is the one who joins two people, not per se a ceremony that is officiated by someone (as Pastor John so well noted there is not a standard ceremony given in Scripture). I suppose a joining of hearts could occur at that moment in a ceremony but it certainly can occur before and thus the ceremony can be the verification of a prior reality.

The union takes place in the heart first, like regeneration does. When people's hearts join this then comes forth in a covenant confession. Just as when the Spirit indwells someone they then confess Christ since Christ is now indwelling the person.

Surely someone would not confess the covenant before they believed in their heart first would they? I see the public declaration or the covenant confession as a reality to what is going on in the heart. It is not commit and then choose to love but rather love and from that it culminates in a covenant expression of love.

Of course maybe you do not see the Spirit as being Christ and thus the indwelling of the Spirit to you is not being in union with Christ. If so that might explain a difference in the way you see things. It is not a matter of parsing anything, but rather defining the doctrine of who is Christ and the Spirit and then applying that to the union metaphor in the Bible. But if you cannot answer who is the Spirit and who is Christ then the union metaphor in Scripture will not mean the same thing to you because you do not see the Spirit as being Christ as being affirmed herein. In such a case we would be working with two different definitions as to who is Christ and who is the Spirit which would lead to different views of what the indwelling means.

Do you see/believe the Holy Spirit is God and that when he indwells someone that such indwelling is Christ living in the person?
 
thanx for answering my question.
 
Steve,

You are welcome.

Yet it sure would be nice though to see your answer to the ones I've asked, unless there is some reason you don't want to answser those questions about who is the Spirit and how you see the indwelling work of him.

I'd like to know, do you think the Spirit is Christ and thus when the Spirit indwells someone that they are then in union with Christ Jesus the Lord? Is there something in that theological position that bothers you or that you see differently? If so please explain.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Steve,

You are welcome.

Yet it sure would be nice though to see your answer to the ones I've asked, unless there is some reason you don't want to answser those questions about who is the Spirit and how you see the indwelling work of him.

I'd like to know, do you think the Spirit is Christ and thus when the Spirit indwells someone that they are then in union with Christ Jesus the Lord? Is there something in that theological position that bothers you or that you see differently? If so please explain.
Click to expand...
i am not convinced that that we have been given enough information on this subject yet.

i hold it not wrong to believe that it just might be above our pay-grade at this point. that it might even be egotistical at this time to try and explain a subject upon which we are not even cleared on the intel. :D
 
i am not convinced that that we have been given enough information on this subject yet.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Well that does explain much then.
 
i completely get it that "committing the act of marriage" puts the couple in a marital union. barring adultry or fornication, of course.

what i want to know is this:
is it at all honouring to the wife to "marry" her prior to a/the public ceremony?

this might be best answered in its own thread, because i think that it might be a "biggie" ;)
 
I would just respond with some of your officials do not have the right to be in their office without being married and quote the verses about requiring marriage for certain "Church offices" which conflicts with requiring non-marriage and furthermore Peter the "first pope" was married, etc.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
The union takes place in the heart first, like regeneration does. When people's hearts join this then comes forth in a covenant confession.
Click to expand...

I do not think this quite correct. A marriage conceived in the mind (out of a sense of duty like levirate marriage for example), is just as valid even if there is no union of the hearts.

In simplest terms a marriage exists when the covenant is established between the two parties for whatever reason.
 
steve said:
however you want to parse it, you seem to be teaching that the marriage for which polygany is a type has the equivalant of the sexual union before the public ceremony.

i do not think that i can state it much plainer than that.
Click to expand...

Personally I do not believe there needs to be a public ceremony. Although there can be.

You just need permission from the right people and agreement that the individuals are married and then you can live together and produce a child immediately afterwords. If the women has no known living parents or guardians if she just agrees to be your wife you can immediately live together and produce a child, no witnesses necessary. If her father is a Christian and she and her father agrees and says you are married, then you are married and allowed to produce a child the moment they agree you are married, no wedding with public guests needed. If the woman's father is not a Christian in my opinion you do not need his permission to marry her, although there is nothing forbidden about getting his permission.

I heard that in one rural country sometimes if a sick women is found in the wilderness and there is no one else nearby the man takes her home nurses her to health and then they just get married, in my opinion if he has her permission I think it is 100% fine, even though there is no one else there to be public wedding guests. I think if a man and an unmarried woman are stranded on a desert island they do not need to have wedding guests to be married and they can just produce a child immediately.

Once you've attempted procreation and agreed that you are married, it is to be a permanent commitment with the exceptions allowed in the Bible such as death and any other exceptions.

However even though you can produce a child before the public ceremony or even avoid a big public ceremony altogether, it is not ok to have relations before marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top