Donations for the month of May


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 3,190
Joined: September 2003
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,493
Posts53,880
Members969
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,201
Tom 4,202
chestnutmare 3,190
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,835
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 16
jta 6
John_C 6
Recent Posts
Children and Vaccines
by Tom - Sat May 14, 2022 1:43 AM
Original Sin
by Tom - Thu May 12, 2022 11:43 PM
Recommendation in how to start reading the Puritans
by Pilgrim - Thu May 12, 2022 1:38 PM
NASB
by Pilgrim - Sun May 08, 2022 6:55 AM
What Speaking the Truth In Love Is Not
by ATulipNotADaisy - Sat May 07, 2022 8:55 PM
The sin of suppressing truth
by chestnutmare - Sat May 07, 2022 8:52 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 3
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 3


I just read an article at http://www.dennyburk.com/what-is-marriage-to-evangelical-millennials-firstthingsmag/ that made me think whether or not the findings of the evangelical college professor concerning evangelical students and their views on marriage is actually widespread view among evangelical students.
I am starting to believe that it is, mainly because I have left a few Churches because of liberal views of Scripture being accepted.
Tom

Last edited by Tom; Wed May 20, 2015 12:06 AM.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Interesting articles to say the least. The "conjugal/procreation" premise that was said to have been lost in our modern evangelical milieu and should be embraced seems more Roman Catholic than biblical, IMO. What I found most lacking was the biblical mandate that marriage: 1) is to be between one man and one woman/wife. 2) is a covenant relationship not only between a man and a woman, but also before God and witnesses to that union. In short, the sanctity of marriage which is to emulate the union which Christ has with His Church was never mentioned.

Arguments against all forms of aberrant "unions", whether they be promiscuous, adulterous or homosexual typically seem to use logic, drawing from all sorts of practical reasons. However, is not the real and only argument what Scripture teaches (that's a rhetorical question)? Conforming to what God has designed and required for mankind not only in regard to marriage but all of life is the only valid argument which a professing Christian should hold unwaveringly.

That's my... [Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 28
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 28
Tom, as you are living in Canada, I thought that you might be interested in this article as it pertains to the gay "marriage" issue. Here is part of it and if you click the link before you can read the rest.

"Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.…"

Read the rest of A Warning from Canada

Last edited by chestnutmare; Thu May 21, 2015 5:49 AM.

The Chestnut Mare
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 3
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 3
Thanks for the article, very sobering.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
I can't quite agree with you here, Pilgrim.
To be sure, Scripture is the only touchstone for the Christian. But the Bible is clear IMO that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. Mal. 2:15. 'But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.'

God designed sex, marriage and family life for the purpose of raising godly children, to give them the best start in life. All aberrant forms of sex are abhorrent to Him for precisely that reason.


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Originally Posted by grace2U
I can't quite agree with you here, Pilgrim.
To be sure, Scripture is the only touchstone for the Christian. But the Bible is clear IMO that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. Mal. 2:15. 'But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.'

God designed sex, marriage and family life for the purpose of raising godly children, to give them the best start in life. All aberrant forms of sex are abhorrent to Him for precisely that reason.
Perhaps I should make clear that I do not deny that procreation is one of the aspects of marriage, although God has prevented some couples from being able to accomplish that. But I do believe that procreation is not the PRIMARY intent of marriage. For, in the beginning God wrote:

Quote
Genesis 2:18-24 (ASV) "And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Therefore, it seems to me that the original inception of marriage was primarily one of companionship and a paradigm of federal headship illustrating the relationship that exists within the economic Trinity. In the NT, the relationship between Christ and His church is fundamentally one of union; bridegroom and bride... procreation not ever mentioned. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 7 discusses several topics concerning marriage. One of them is one's "need" to be married. There he wrote that he thinks it would be better if one remain single as he was. If procreation was the primary reason for marriage, it seems strange to me that he would encourage individuals to remain single and not marry in order to populate the earth.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
I'm sorry to have been so long coming back on this.
I do, of course, agree with you that marriage is for companionship, and also as a paradigm of federal headship, but I think Malachi 2:15 is rather clear.

Both the W.C.F. and the 1689 Confession give three purposes for marriage (WCK XXIV:II):

'Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and for preventing of uncleanness.'

FWIW, Cranmer's Anglican Prayer Book (1554 & 1662) gives as the primary reason for marriage: 'First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of His holy Name.'

One reason why I am concerned that procreation should be given as a primary reason for marriage is that if companionship is the main reason, then two people of the same gender can give that to each other.


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 42
Let me iterate, just so there is no confusion or misunderstanding of my position. grin

1. From Genesis 2:18:24 God said it was not good for man to be alone, thus He created Eve as Adam's helpmeet. Thus, from the first, there was designed to be a relationship between man a woman. This was the primary reason for God creating Eve for the man.

2. Once that relationship was formed, sex and procreation resulted from it. Therefore, although they are fundamental aspects of marriage, they were designed to be ancillary to a loving relationship between a man and a woman.

3. Therefore, I believe companionship, grounded in holy love, is the primary design of marriage and the other two elements that flow from it are most natural and an inseparable part of what marriage was designed to be.

4. Cranmer's statement is not unexpected since there are other areas of the Anglican church which are very similar to that of the Roman State Church, e.g., baptism, sarcedotalism, etc., which unfortunately should have been cast off.

Lastly, let me comment on your reason for wanting to make procreation as the primary reason for marriage, that being as a defense against same sex marriage/unions. a) We should not formulate doctrine based upon any worldly opposition or threat to God's truth. One other such mistake comes to mind in regard to the doctrine of creation where the world's 'science' claimed to hold irrefutable 'proof' that the world was millions, perhaps billions of years old. Some otherwise very biblical and wise men unfortunately gave in to the pressure of these theories and compromised their views of creation thus formulating an 'old age' doctrine vs. a young age doctrine (6 literal 24-hour days). The consequences of their compromise was far reaching. For example, in the OPC, according to their "Hermeneutic of Trust" (whatever the experts say must be true), various incompatible and contradictory views of creation are deemed acceptable. b) The argument(s) from the gay-rights movement and their followers has caused many in the broad Christian community to be led astray, i.e., they have abandoned the WHOLE truth concerning marriage and happily gone down the conceived 'rabbit trail' of those arguments. What I'm trying to convey is that the companionship I propose as being the primary reason for marriage was designed to be an intimate union between one man and one woman, within which sex and and offspring typically follow. In short, it isn't just ANY type of companionship that marriage was instituted but rather it was a heterosexual union. Anything other than a heterosexual union is aberrant and an abominable sin. Therefore, the fundamental issue is not marriage itself but homosexuality and all other deviant 'unions'. Since homosexuality is fundamentally that which is against nature itself, i.e., it is contrary to all that God designed for man, then any union/marriage between same sex couples or any other type of union other than a heterosexual one is automatically wrong. Notice that Scripture does not directly address same-sex marriage, but rather it focuses upon the deviant sexual behavior of fallen mankind and summarily condemns it. And, there are other benefits to be derived from dealing with the fundamental issue of deviant sexual behavior which directly affects such things are adoption, membership in churches, employment positions, etc., etc.

So, it isn't that I totally disagree with your view... only the order of the three elements of marriage. On those three elements, we are of one accord. BigThumbUp


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 35 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta, DiscipleEddie
969 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,340,757 Gospel truth