Atheist girlfriend

[Constantine the Sinner]

I don't get your way of thinking there, I know I don't, as I've said, and didn't you already agree other protestants don't? I really don't or wouldn't care what a church I might attend thought, I am not my churches mind necessarily, and probably why I dumped denomination a long time ago. So I assume maybe you mean that is the official protestant churches stance? If so, I understand and also hope you understand others share my view.

Honestly, I wouldn't need a contact wedding, not what we normally know as one anyway. A common law would be fine. Or if there were ever a time when I was in a position it was a pain to get either, a simple, "I now pronounce us man and wife under the rules of the almighty" would be just fine with me....maybe even preferred.

Ask your pastor if marriage is a Sacrament, see for yourself.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Not the act itself, but the covenant made in the ceremony by the man and woman with God conveys grace. Also, in my old church, the congregation made a commitment with God to support them in the marriage. Honestly, I think some of the difference is in language as well.

Well, yes, but the language is important. I'm looking at this from the SBC's cite, for instance:

Sacraments are, according to the Westminster Confession [contrasted with baptist theology], “holy seals and signs of the covenant of grace,” and “in every sacrament there is a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the effects of the one are attributed to the other.”[6] The Baptist confessions omit this sacramental language altogether, substituting statements that these ordinances were “appointed,” “ordained,” or “instituted” by Jesus Christ.[7] The ordinances are thus seen by Baptists as symbolic rather than sacramental in character.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ask your pastor if marriage is a Sacrament, see for yourself.

I already see. I think the misunderstanding here is you are more about what your church says rules over everything, when others don't cling so much to that view. I think that's the difference anyway.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Not the act itself, but the covenant made in the ceremony by the man and woman with God conveys grace. Also, in my old church, the congregation made a commitment with God to support them in the marriage. Honestly, I think some of the difference is in language as well.

Also, isn't the act (among Protestants), the same thing as the covenant?

 

[All4Christ]

Well, yes, but the language is important. I'm looking at this from the SBC's cite, for instance:

Sacraments are, according to the Westminster Confession [contrasted with baptist theology], “holy seals and signs of the covenant of grace,” and “in every sacrament there is a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the effects of the one are attributed to the other.”[6] The Baptist confessions omit this sacramental language altogether, substituting statements that these ordinances were “appointed,” “ordained,” or “instituted” by Jesus Christ.[7] The ordinances are thus seen by Baptists as symbolic rather than sacramental in character.

I agree that language is important. All I'm explaining is the underlying meaning of what some Protestants believe happens in a marriage. For example, this is from my old church's statement of beliefs:

Marriage is God-ordained. "The Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’" (Matthew 19:4,5). God’s design for marriage goes back to mankind's beginning. The family, as God’s means of propagating His creation, grows out of this primary human relationship.

Marriage is a covenant, a solemn binding agreement made before God and man. The religious ceremony of the wedding before church and community emphasizes that marriage is more than a legal agreement between two individuals. The church has a responsibility to support and nurture the marriage that has been affirmed by public vows.

Ideally, the relationship between husband and wife should parallel the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:23-30). The husband should love his wife "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). The wife should submit to her husband as the Church should submit to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22-24). But it is a misreading of Scripture, however, to conclude that the husband can become dictatorial. The entire passage is introduced by the admonition, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21). It is only after each spouse submits one to another from a heart of love that the head/submission relationship will work. The husband has special responsibility for the spiritual leadership and welfare of the wife and family (Psalms 78:5-8, Ephesians 5:23). While the woman has responsibility as a parent, God has called the husband to be the leader in the home. The woman is not inferior to the man. Both have full dignity and equal standing before God. In homes where the father is not a Christian or refuses to provide spiritual leadership, it is right for the mother to assume this responsibility. Strong spiritual training is essential for children to develop spiritually (Proverbs 22:6).

A happy and complete marriage is realized as both partners make Christ the center of their marriage relationship. With Christ as the head, the marriage has an excellent chance to succeed.

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/topics/relations_04_marriage.cfm

 

[~Anastasia~]

To be perfectly honest, maybe my understanding as a Protestant was flawed (it would not surprise me) ... But I ALWAYS considered the grace of God to act in baptism, communion, and even marriage.

I just didn't understand it (myself) as fully as the Orthodox do, since we see grace as the Energies of God Himself (I certainly missed some nuances of Essence/Energies, but not all). That and I didn't see baptism as regenerative.

But my understanding of the grace of God working through baptism, communion, and marriage was there, just incomplete.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I already see. I think the misunderstanding here is you are more about what your church says rules over everything, when others don't cling so much to that view. I think that's the difference anyway.

I generally look to Protestant leaders and theologians to understand Protestant theology, yes. You might have your own, but that doesn't necessarily make it Protestant, even if it is Christian.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I generally look to Protestant leaders and theologians to understand Protestant theology, yes. You might have your own, but that doesn't necessarily make it Protestant, even if it is Christian.

I give up in trying to make my point.

 

[All4Christ]

To be perfectly honest, maybe my understanding as a Protestant was flawed (it would not surprise me) ... But I ALWAYS considered the grace of God to act in baptism, communion, and even marriage.

I just didn't understand it (myself) as fully as the Orthodox do, since we see grace as the Energies of God Himself (I certainly missed some nuances of Essence/Energies, but not all). That and I didn't see baptism as regenerative.

But my understanding of the grace of God working through baptism, communion, and marriage was there, just incomplete.

From my perspective, the difference was that there wasn't anything in the act itself, but our obedience to God brought us into a closer relationship with Him. Does that make sense? It was our part in partaking that accepted God's grace, but it was not conveying salvific grace in the actual communion or baptism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I agree that language is important. All I'm explaining is the underlying meaning of what some Protestants believe happens in a marriage. For example, this is from my old church's statement of beliefs:

Did your church forbid marriage to non-Christians?

 

[All4Christ]

Did your church forbid marriage to non-Christians?

We could not have a church marriage with non-Christians. People could get civil law marriage, but since it was not a covenant with God, they weren't married in the eyes of God, unless it was before they became Christian.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

To be perfectly honest, maybe my understanding as a Protestant was flawed (it would not surprise me) ... But I ALWAYS considered the grace of God to act in baptism, communion, and even marriage.

I just didn't understand it (myself) as fully as the Orthodox do, since we see grace as the Energies of God Himself (I certainly missed some nuances of Essence/Energies, but not all). That and I didn't see baptism as regenerative.

But my understanding of the grace of God working through baptism, communion, and marriage was there, just incomplete.

Well that's good, perhaps your understanding isn't unique.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

We could not have a church marriage with non-Christians.

I don't think many do outside of Mainline Protestants, but I mean did you see it as living in fornication?

 

[~Anastasia~]

But really, to be fair, we need to avoid painting Protestants with a broad brush. It can be right to say "Methodists believe ... " or "Lutherans teach ..."

But nearly every time we say "Protestants believe xyz" we risk error, because there is such tremendous variation.

And if we are ALL seeking to follow God and find Truth, it should come as no surprise when we find things we AGREE upon.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't think many do outside of Mainline Protestants, but I mean did you see it as living in fornication?

Yes.

ETA: In this case, I am referring to my previous denomination, though I think it was fairly widespread among conservatives. After all, of marriage by definition is a covenant between man, woman and God, how can that happen with a non-Christian?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes.

And seconded. We would have seen a non-Church wedding as nothing in the eyes of God, so technically fornication. This was a fairly widespread view, from where I was.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

But really, to be fair, we need to avoid painting Protestants with a broad brush. It can be right to say "Methodists believe ... " or "Lutherans teach ..."

But nearly every time we say "Protestants believe xyz" we risk error, because there is such tremendous variation.

And if we are ALL seeking to follow God and find Truth, it should come as no surprise when we find things we AGREE upon.

Aye, there is variation, but I think certain basic tenets, such as Sola Scriptura and so on, have to be there for a denomination to qualify as Protestant.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes.

ETA: In this case, I am referring to my previous church. After all, of marriage by definition is a covenant between man, woman and God, how can that happen with a non-Christian?

It can't, that's why I'm curious, since I've never known a Protestant irl who saw marriage to a non-Christian as invalid; some have considered it a really, really, really bad idea, but never as fornication. This is the first time I've seen that.

 

[All4Christ]

It can't, that's why I'm curious, since I've never known a Protestant irl who saw marriage to a non-Christian as invalid; some have considered it a really, really, really bad idea, but never as fornication. This is the first time I've seen that.

All I can say is that is what we were taught both from the pulpit and in our membership classes. @~Anastasia~ You had a similar background. Would you concur?

 

[~Anastasia~]

All I can say is that is what we were taught both from the pulpit and in our membership classes. @~Anastasia~ You had a similar background. Would you concur?

Pretty much. Though the problem talked about more often was the secular service.

Even if both were Christian, if they got married outside the church, it was often considered invalid and fornication.