When is the CHURCH going to force the govt out of it's sacraments

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Marriage.
A sacrament. A holy vow made between a man and a woman before God, and INCLUDING GOD.
Why does the Church allow the govt to define marriage, whether between heterosexuals following their faith and entering the sacrament or between sinners of the same sex, pretending to do the same, following the lusts of their flesh.
Why do WE allow for the govt to call a civil union a marriage?

We don't allow the govt to call Christmas, Christmas anymore. We don't allow the govt to call Thanksgiving Holy Communion.

We should take back marriage. We should take back Christmas and Easter and let the seculars have their vacations and their unions.

Where is the ACLU while the govt is instituting a religious ceremony, a sacrament?
Cmon ACLU ban marriage. It is NOT the govt's job to define it.

If a Church chooses to recognize an abomination like homosexuality as OK, then WE can excommunicate them can't we. Kick the whole church out of our midst. But, it needs to start with a stand.
Where do we stand?:sorry:

The Church has no authority over the government. And Marriage is no sacrament. Protestants specifically opposed marriage having anything to do with Christianity during the Reformation, and ensured the power of marriage belong to the state. Christianity entered the marriage business quite late in fact. 12-1600 years after Christianity began for Catholics, and 1800 for Protestants.

Marriage is a government institution. ALWAYS has been in this country. A religious ceremony means nothing regarding legal marriage.

Do you seriously think God supports calling gays an abomination? FYI, abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew, so you're already talking about something that's factually wrong. Where is the love and compassion? Do you guys realize how much suffering you are causing gay people? Do you think they feel good when society keeps calling them hell bound abominations and disgusting perverts?

Homosexuality is a universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom and required for survival of the species. If God hates it so much, he shouldn't have created it. And no, Satan had nothing to do with it.
 
Upvote 0
L

Lovely Lane

Guest
I would agree but marriage does not mean a religious ceremony. Christians or other religions make it that way. We take our vows before God while a man of the cloth presides,but for the most part, most gay marriages go before an employee of the government. Their vows are to each other and not God.

The government, by this, takes God out of ceremony and there is no sacrament.
The vows of a couple being married by a government employee such as a Justice of Peace are determined by the couple being 'joined together'. So, the vows may be the same as what Christians in a church wedding use.

Also, what would you say to a Justice of Peace being 'sworn' into office by the loyalty oath that they take as opposed to being 'affirmed' into office?

I see it that if the Justice of Peace 'swears' of the oath they are in effect relying on God in performance of their duties.
And when the JP only 'affirms' of the oath, they are not relying on God in performance of their duties.

With that said, a 'sworn' JP acts just as clergy and if the vows are the same as those in Christian church wedding then the marriage is considered to be in Holy Matrimony. Why I say this, Romans 13:1-2 for starters."Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

So the government didn't take God out of the ceremony. And I would say that no USA State government or Federal government can possibly take God out of the establishment of government, for one the Bible says so, and also, each State and Federal governments acknowledge God. Take a look at preamble of Ohio's Constitution. " We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution"
I just bet all 50 States has something similar to this.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 16, 2009
3,039
134
Kentucky
✟12,610.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think my point is regarding gay unions, is let them have them, just so long as they are NEVER endorsed by true Christians.

We must NEVER say murder is OK, ie war, or killing for drug money or out of anger at our neighbor. Just as we know a thief is forgiven so long as he acknowledges the theft was a sin.

homosexuality is a sin, and as the CHURCH, we must admonish the acts. If the govt chooses to promote it, so what. Let them have their abominable acts of sin, ie war, gay marriage, abortion. We, the BODY of CHRIST, know that we battle against darkness. Let's not pretend that we can win before our Master is come again.:prayer:
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Marriage.
A sacrament. A holy vow made between a man and a woman before God, and INCLUDING GOD.
Why does the Church allow the govt to define marriage, whether between heterosexuals following their faith and entering the sacrament or between sinners of the same sex, pretending to do the same, following the lusts of their flesh.
Why do WE allow for the govt to call a civil union a marriage?

We don't allow the govt to call Christmas, Christmas anymore. We don't allow the govt to call Thanksgiving Holy Communion.

We should take back marriage. We should take back Christmas and Easter and let the seculars have their vacations and their unions.

Where is the ACLU while the govt is instituting a religious ceremony, a sacrament?
Cmon ACLU ban marriage. It is NOT the govt's job to define it.

If a Church chooses to recognize an abomination like homosexuality as OK, then WE can excommunicate them can't we. Kick the whole church out of our midst. But, it needs to start with a stand.
Where do we stand?:sorry:

This wasn't a problem so long as the government basically reflected the historic (and, therefore, Christian) view of the relationship. Now that this is weakening, its role is being reevaluated.

BUT

Are you prepared to have the government be completely out of the family relationship business, not standing behing the parties in a marriage in any way? Treating the partners simply as friends living in the same residence? Think about it. Wives receive Social Security and other benefits by virtue of being recognized as married (or widowed). That would go. And that's just one example.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The vows of a couple being married by a government employee such as a Justice of Peace are determined by the couple being 'joined together'. So, the vows may be the same as what Christians in a church wedding use.
May be vs are, are two separate things. My Great Granddad was a Justice of the Peace but was not an ordained minister. Justices of the Peace are employees of the Court which can preform "civil marriages" and using vows similar to a Christian marriage does not make them a Christian marriage.

Now, I am not saying that God cannot recognize them, that is for God only to judge but many Churches do not recognize them.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think my point is regarding gay unions, is let them have them, just so long as they are NEVER endorsed by true Christians.
That's for Christians to decide for themselves. My Church won't recognize them as it also doesn't recognize civil unions as marriages.
 
Upvote 0
L

Leap

Guest
Sadly, the church has little influence and no control over the government, which means that in practice governments can institute whatever ceremonies they like and call them whatever we like...and in a society infested with liberalism the voice to the contrary is too easily drowned out by the individualistic mob clammering for recognition of its base appetites. It is even acceptable over here for members of parliament to declare themselves atheist despite the head of State being sworn to "promote the true gospel" in her coronation vows. :(
 
Upvote 0

Amber Bird

We have enough gun control.We need idiot control!
Jul 8, 2012
771
50
✟1,243.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
A religious marriage ceremony isn't under Government purview.
However, a lawful State marriage license application is. It is a civil union contract between parties, issued by the State according to the lawful outline that describes union, community property, protections, etc...
It's what permit the applicants to then seek all legal rights and protections under that marriage law, from those offices within the secular realm. I.e. cheaper car insurance, family life insurance, tax deductions, etc...

A religion can say their church will only perform a heterosexual marriage ceremony and that's perfectly within the rights and protections afforded them by the 1st amendments establishment clause.

However, the church is not entitled to claim the establishment clause should then be enacted even by inference so as to preclude States from issuing State marriage licenses to one select class of adult persons seeking civil union/aka:marriage, based on the argument marriage is defined by those religious persons as a union between one man and one woman.

A couple is legally married when they enter into the contract that licenses their civil union through the State. The ceremony afterward is secondary.
It's what allows for freedom of religion, in ceremony exclusivity between a man and woman only. And freedom from religion in that the State government can not make a law that can stand unchallenged, that says marriage between Gays is not permitted due to religious doctrine. It's simply unconstitutional.

So really, the real question with a Constitutional answer already established could read as:

When is the State going to force the church out of it's marriage laws?
Answer: The Constitution already has.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Marriage, as it's understood, is a HOLY MATRIMONY. I fail to understand how some are NOT making this connection.
Because you don't get to dictate the meaning of a word. Marriage is only used in English speaking countries, and not all countries define it the same way. Marriage predates Judeo-Christianity, and Christians themselves adamantly opposed having any involvement with it.

It's not a religious institution, it's a secular one and has been for the majority of human history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amber Bird
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
i AM saying that unless God is the pinnacle of the marriage, it is NOT a marriage, it is a civil union.:preach:

Well that's all well and good for you, but it's been called marriage all around the world by people who don't ascribe to your beliefs.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
My point is that we, the CHURCH have allowed the govt to carry out OUR work of bringing marriage before God. It is NOT a govt duty to marry ppl.
Martin Luther and the Protestants disagreed with you. They demanded the State handle marriage because Christians deemed it a worldly thing.

Marriage is a sacrament, which the Church performs.
And yet, when a Pastor performs a ceremony, he is required to end it with "By the power invested in me by the State of..." Religious marriage carries zero legal weight, and you can't get divorced in church.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Everything I've read on the subject of Marriage is that it is a Holy Matrimony. A sacrament, in which Christ Jesus, and through Him, God, is the head of.

It is my argument, that the US govt, and ALL secular govts across the globe, STOP, any union sanctioned solely by the govts, from being called a MARRIAGE.

Let the govt have it's civil unions and get them out of the business of marriage.:prayer:

Not sure what material you've been reading, but might want to read this. Your views do not line up with history.


History of Marriage in Western Civilization

As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines.


The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage").

In the first Christian centuries marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it remained understood that, even as a sacrament, marriage sprang from the free consent of the two partners, and that therefore neither the parents nor the priest nor the government could affect its validity.

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.

The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses.

In most of Europe marriages continued to require a religious ceremony until the French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic church. Eventually, marriage before some magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.


So basically, marriage was only under the power of the Church for 200 years of Christianity's 2000 year history. Marriage being controlled by the Church only 10% of Christianity's history is not a compelling argument for it being a religious institution.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
I think my point is regarding gay unions, is let them have them, just so long as they are NEVER endorsed by true Christians.
And what about those Christians who do endorse same-sex marriage, just like the Church did for hundreds of years.


homosexuality is a sin,
So is working on Saturdays.

The majority of Christians do not agree with you. You can't call anyone who disagrees with you not "True Christians".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sadly, the church has little influence and no control over the government, which means that in practice governments can institute whatever ceremonies they like and call them whatever we like...and in a society infested with liberalism the voice to the contrary is too easily drowned out by the individualistic mob clammering for recognition of its base appetites. It is even acceptable over here for members of parliament to declare themselves atheist despite the head of State being sworn to "promote the true gospel" in her coronation vows. :(
Why would that not be acceptable? If I choose to be an Atheist that is my choice that is your choice. It is a secular government SECULAR laws.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 16, 2009
3,039
134
Kentucky
✟12,610.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And what about those Christians who do endorse same-sex marriage, just like the Church did for hundreds of years.


So is working on Saturdays.

The majority of Christians do not agree with you. You can't call anyone who disagrees with you not "True Christians".

Well, a man can call himself a Christian and endorse pedophilia and infanticide. I have not kept the Sabbath Holy, but i am forgiven of it BY REPENTANCE.

Unrepentant homosexuals, according the the Word of God, will not inherit the Kingdom.

There is also a forum rule which prohibits endorsing homosexuality on this board. Please refrain from confusing those who, in their attempts to love one another, fall for accepting an abomination as OK.

I love my heterosexual brothers and sisters who have fallen into the sin of homsexuality. But I pray that they will repent and turn away from their sin.

My thread has more to do with the GOVT defining a religious institution. If the word, MARRIAGE, is NOT what the BIBLE calls the union of man and woman in God, then as Christians we should change the name of the vows we take soas to obey the commands of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Nov 16, 2009
3,039
134
Kentucky
✟12,610.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And what about those Christians who do endorse same-sex marriage, just like the Church did for hundreds of years.

So you call hanging them and stoning them, and burning the heretics at the stake, endorsing them for hundreds of years.

Im not saying we should KILL them. I am saying we should take our institution back. MAKE A STAND, not a push.:prayer:
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And what about those Christians who do endorse same-sex marriage, just like the Church did for hundreds of years.


So is working on Saturdays.

The majority of Christians do not agree with you. You can't call anyone who disagrees with you not "True Christians".
The Sabbath rest is now The Lord Jesus.

This what Jesus was referring to when he said in Matt 11:

28 “ Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”


This is also confirmed in Hebrews 4:1-7
Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,“ As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh
day: “ And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”;
5 and again in this
passage, “ They shall not enter My rest.”
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“ Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”



The Sabbath (since Christ has risen), is a picture of resting in the work Christ did for our salvation because he fulfilled the Law for us.

This is further why the Apostle Paul writes in Colossians 2:
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


I PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!!!! :clap:

Some people simply don't understand why there is no more Sabbath Days, but that is why the Christian should not keep the Sabbath. They can if they wish...but they don't have to.
 
Upvote 0

IisJustMe

He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)
Jun 23, 2006
14,270
1,888
Blue Springs, Missouri
✟23,494.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And what about those Christians who do endorse same-sex marriage, just like the Church did for hundreds of years.
I know this a complete waste of time, but "Proof for that statement, please?"
 
Upvote 0
Nov 16, 2009
3,039
134
Kentucky
✟12,610.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I know this a complete waste of time, but "Proof for that statement, please?"

I always thought they were stoned, hung, or worse when they practiced the abomination openly......that is until satan infiltrated the pulpits with apostates.:prayer::prayer::prayer:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Amber Bird

We have enough gun control.We need idiot control!
Jul 8, 2012
771
50
✟1,243.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think the issue here is that certain people within the church believe Marriage is their exclusive domain.
Expecting to reach through the bias that uses God's word as a shield to promote disharmony, bias, bigotry and lawful sex discrimination with the premeditated intent of revoking the inalienable right to civil protections and citizen equality for our Gay family of God's creation, is a waste of time in my opinion.

The opponents to Christ like countenances that look toward Gays as fellow souls created in the image and likeness of our Father in Heaven, are determined because they imagine God approves.

That marriage is not something that has a history that began exclusively in the church does not matter.
That Gays are not Heterosexuals "choosing" to be Gay, because believing that one is admitting they're choosing to be straight and that leaves the option open to changing their mind, because they imagine sexuality is something controlled by other than the libido, is not only ridiculous but dismissive and particularly insulting to then say all means and measures that show hate and contempt for Gay equality is actually fostered by love for them. Not insulting to the Gays but insulting to the Christian that believes love hates.

It is inevitable that Gay marriage will one day be fully lawful in the United States. Christians do not have the exclusive right to appoint what marriage is and who can join. The USSC gets the final say, and one day it will come to that.
In the meantime the States that have laws outlining Gay marriage, and that then entitled Gay married couples to equal rights as lawfully married couples set the precedent for sweeping legislation to take effect one State at a time.
It's simply constitutional. Equal protection.

I think people who condemn individuals to lawful discrimination should ask God's mercy for shaking their fist and condemning one class of people to be lawfully unequal in a country founded to be free for all of we the people.
Straights haven't exampled themselves to be the beacon of righteous morality as married couples. So if marriage is a sacred union they'll have a lot of explaining to do to God for how they comported themselves within that covenant they believe is exclusively theirs as Christians.

History of Marriage
 
Upvote 0