The Sacramentality of Marriage

Polycarp1 · May 3, 2008

You know, I've been thinking about the points people have been raising about the sanctity of marriage, and they do have a point. So I'm going to give my thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people created by a covenant in which each grants the other a lifelong exclusive commitment of his/her love and sexuality, entered into before God and His people, and blessed by Him. In order to do so, of course, they must go before a priest (or Lutheran pastor) empowered to grant God's blessing by being ordained in the Apostolic Succession.

But I realize that this ideal state is not politically feasible, so I'm prepared to compromise -- Baptist and Pentecostal couples and the like can have a civil union. Clearly they're not entitled to the same recognition and blessing as someone who truly believes in historic Christianity, including sacramental theology and the apostolic succession. But they should have legal rights nonetheless, even though it wouldn't be right to give them the full panoply of those who are really married. (Of course, if they repent and turn to an historic apostolic church, God will forgive their sin and bless their union.)

Doesn't this sound reasonable?

BreadAlone · May 3, 2008

Polycarp1 said:
You know, I've been thinking about the points people have been raising about the sanctity of marriage, and they do have a point. So I'm going to give my thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people created by a covenant in which each grants the other a lifelong exclusive commitment of his/her love and sexuality, entered into before God and His people, and blessed by Him. In order to do so, of course, they must go before a priest (or Lutheran pastor) empowered to grant God's blessing by being ordained in the Apostolic Succession.

But I realize that this ideal state is not politically feasible, so I'm prepared to compromise -- Baptist and Pentecostal couples and the like can have a civil union. Clearly they're not entitled to the same recognition and blessing as someone who truly believes in historic Christianity, including sacramental theology and the apostolic succession. But they should have legal rights nonetheless, even though it wouldn't be right to give them the full panoply of those who are really married. (Of course, if they repent and turn to an historic apostolic church, God will forgive their sin and bless their union.)

Doesn't this sound reasonable?

Confessional Lutherans do not believe in the "Sacrament" of marriage. There are but two sacraments, holy communion and baptism.

Plus, no where does the Bible say how a marriage is to be performed, just that it is to be between man and woman, in public with witnesses. A marraige by civil servant is just as valid as one administered by the Pope himself IMHO.

ETA: Deleted this last part. We're good to go.

Apollo Celestio · May 3, 2008

BreadAlone said:
Confessional Lutherans do not believe in the "Sacrament" of marriage. There are but two sacraments, holy communion and baptism.

Plus, no where does the Bible say how a marriage is to be performed, just that it is to be between man and woman, in public with witnesses. A marraige by civil servant is just as valid as one administered by the Pope himself IMHO.

Also, can you show me how this has to do specifically with homosexuality? Otherwise I'm gonna have to report the OP and recommend it be moved to CP&E's main thread.

It relates to heterosexuals getting married and homosexuals getting married, pretty much saying this is how homosexuals are treated and trying to make it out as if they're alike. Given most of us who oppose the gay marriage thing (in the church, anyway.) go by the scripture, the OP is pretty much scripturally wrong since marriage isn't really a "sacrament". Whereas same sex sex is condemned.

BreadAlone · May 3, 2008

Ishida said:
It relates to heterosexuals getting married and homosexuals getting married, pretty much saying this is how homosexuals are treated and trying to make it out as if they're alike. Given most of us who oppose the gay marriage thing (in the church, anyway.) go by the scripture, the OP is pretty much scripturally wrong since marriage isn't really a "sacrament". Whereas same sex sex is condemned.

I guess that's okay, just so long as we stay connected to that focus in this thread, I guess it'd be okay..

catlover · May 3, 2008

Polycarp1 said:
You know, I've been thinking about the points people have been raising about the sanctity of marriage, and they do have a point. So I'm going to give my thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people created by a covenant in which each grants the other a lifelong exclusive commitment of his/her love and sexuality, entered into before God and His people, and blessed by Him. In order to do so, of course, they must go before a priest (or Lutheran pastor) empowered to grant God's blessing by being ordained in the Apostolic Succession.

But I realize that this ideal state is not politically feasible, so I'm prepared to compromise -- Baptist and Pentecostal couples and the like can have a civil union. Clearly they're not entitled to the same recognition and blessing as someone who truly believes in historic Christianity, including sacramental theology and the apostolic succession. But they should have legal rights nonetheless, even though it wouldn't be right to give them the full panoply of those who are really married. (Of course, if they repent and turn to an historic apostolic church, God will forgive their sin and bless their union.)

Doesn't this sound reasonable?

Sounds good.

Phinehas2 · May 7, 2008

Dear Polycarp1,

Doesn't this sound reasonable?

no.

Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people created by a covenant in which each grants the other a lifelong exclusive commitment of his/her love and sexuality, entered into before God and His people, and blessed by Him.

This is not entirely correct and crucially misses the key point that , marriage is between a man and a woman. This is because God created male and female for this purpose (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5) He created them male and female so that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife so the two become one flesh. Unless one pays attention to the whole one is in danger of error especially thinking same-sex unions are valid, when clearly according to scripture they aren’t.

In order to do so, of course, they must go before a priest (or Lutheran pastor) empowered to grant God's blessing by being ordained in the Apostolic Succession.

This is debatable, whilst I tend to agree, where does the NT says this is necessary? A public profession to God and infront of fellowship perhaps?

Clearly they're not entitled to the same recognition and blessing as someone who truly believes in historic Christianity,

One must also remember that false teachers existed from the start, the NT writers warned to be careful who lays hands on believers. Furthermore those ordained by the laying on of hands who no longer belong to the Roman, Orthodox or Protestant Anglican or Lutheran churches have still had the hands laid on by those in apostolic succession. Is it the membership of a church denomination or the laying on of hands in apostolic succession that is the key?
In addition, the apostles and NT writers insist it is holding to the faith once delivered that is apostolic succession (ie. Gal 1, 2 Cor 11)

IamRedeemed · May 7, 2008

BreadAlone said:
Confessional Lutherans do not believe in the "Sacrament" of marriage. There are but two sacraments, holy communion and baptism.

Plus, no where does the Bible say how a marriage is to be performed, just that it is to be between man and woman, in public with witnesses. A marriage by civil servant is just as valid as one administered by the Pope himself IMHO.

ETA: Deleted this last part. We're good to go.

Ishida said:
It relates to heterosexuals getting married and homosexuals getting married, pretty much saying this is how homosexuals are treated and trying to make it out as if they're alike. Given most of us who oppose the gay marriage thing (in the church, anyway.) go by the scripture, the OP is pretty much scripturally wrong since marriage isn't really a "sacrament". Whereas same sex sex is condemned.

IamRedeemed · May 7, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Polycarp1,

no.

This is not entirely correct and crucially misses the key point that , marriage is between a man and a woman. This is because God created male and female for this purpose (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5) He created them male and female so that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife so the two become one flesh. Unless one pays attention to the whole one is in danger of error especially thinking same-sex unions are valid, when clearly according to scripture they arent.
This is debatable, whilst I tend to agree, where does the NT says this is necessary? A public profession to God and infront of fellowship perhaps?

One must also remember that false teachers existed from the start, the NT writers warned to be careful who lays hands on believers. Furthermore those ordained by the laying on of hands who no longer belong to the Roman, Orthodox or Protestant Anglican or Lutheran churches have still had the hands laid on by those in apostolic succession. Is it the membership of a church denomination or the laying on of hands in apostolic succession that is the key?
In addition, the apostles and NT writers insist it is holding to the faith once delivered that is apostolic succession (ie. Gal 1, 2 Cor 11)

Texas Lynn · May 7, 2008

Ishida said:
Given most of us who oppose the gay marriage thing (in the church, anyway.) go by the scripture

Correction: you "go by" what you THINK scripture says and which scripture applies according to your established preconceived notions and the groupthink which is expected of you in your particular sects.

Apollo Celestio · May 7, 2008

Texas Lynn said:
Correction: you "go by" what you THINK scripture says and which scripture applies according to your established preconceived notions and the groupthink which is expected of you in your particular sects.

Wow, you've like totally seen through me! You do not know me, and you are in no position to judge me. So why not present a real argument?

Polycarp1 · May 7, 2008

Phinehas: May I first reinforce the concept, which you seem to be having trouble grasping, that you are not the authority to whom the world turns for knowledge of what the Bible means. I'm sorry to burst your bubble like that, but it's the truth. You're entitled to present your views as to what Christians are called to do inb light of your understanding of Scripture; you are not privileged to lay down as unquestionable Truth your opinions of what Biblical passages mean.

And of course my point is that, just as you believe based on your understanding of God's will as prescribed in Scripture that marriage is between one man and one woman, so too might someone believe that the nature of sacramental marriage means that no marriage is valid unless contracted in a church before clergy ordained in the apostolic succession (which your comments imply you don't understand either) -- and, further, that neither religious critierion has any business being what the civil laws recognize as the standard.

Polycarp1 · May 7, 2008

IamRedeemed said:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." --the Lord Jesus Christ

Texas Lynn · May 7, 2008

Ishida said:
Wow, you've like totally seen through me! You do not know me, and you are in no position to judge me. So why not present a real argument?

I know how "we go by the scripture" is a pompous assertion easily disproven. You take it back and I'll take back your comeuppance.

Apollo Celestio · May 7, 2008

Texas Lynn said:
I know how "we go by the scripture" is a pompous assertion easily disproven. You take it back and I'll take back your comeuppance.

Take what back? Easily dis proven? I'll wait for that.

IamRedeemed · May 7, 2008

Amen!!! I couldn't agree with you more on that. I would never want anyone feeding me a pack of lies and hypocrisies and great swelling words, selling me a 'too good to be true (cake and eat it too) package', making me think I am on my way to heaven when the Word of God speaks a multitude to the contrary. I would definitely want someone to tell me the truth to their own hurt. Absolutely. I pray that God increases the laborers in the harvest. May Jesus Christ be glorified, magnified and exalted!

Polycarp1 said:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." --the Lord Jesus Christ

Texas Lynn · May 7, 2008

Ishida said:
Take what back? Easily dis proven? I'll wait for that.

Saying you 'go by scripture'. Sure, you do, when it's convenient. Otherwise you would have to say the sun revolves around the earth.

KCKID · May 7, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Polycarp1,

no.

This is not entirely correct and crucially misses the key point that , marriage is between a man and a woman. This is because God created male and female for this purpose (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5) He created them male and female so that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife so the two become one flesh. Unless one pays attention to the whole one is in danger of error especially thinking same-sex unions are valid, when clearly according to scripture they arent.

You make the male/female relationship of the Bible sound so rosy, Phinehas. 'Fraid not. The woman's role in the relationship was subserviant to the male. She was basically 'property' of the male and was there pretty much to cater to the every whim of the male, to 'breed' and to raise up the kids. The woman all but had to wear an ankle length sack and a bag over her head with two holes through which to peek. Oh ...and a gag over her mouth, of course! An exaggeration, yes, but few women of today would want to return to the culture of marriage that existed several thousand years ago.

But wait ...as long as some are wanting to hold fast to the Bible example of marriage, why don't they - the female Christians on this forum - quit their well paid jobs, forget all about their dreams and ambitions, and return to the kitchen where they belong? ...you know, become barefoot and pregnant as the Bible prefers ...? The God of the Bible would surely frown on the working wives and mothers of today who neglect their families in order to support a 'we must keep up with the Jones' lifestyle.

Using the culture of a bygone era as an example of 'how things SHOULD be' simply because 'the Bible says so' is ludicrous.

Apollo Celestio · May 7, 2008

Texas Lynn said:
Saying you 'go by scripture'. Sure, you do, when it's convenient. Otherwise you would have to say the sun revolves around the earth.

Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth? Bring forth something with substance.

KCKID · May 7, 2008

Ishida said:
Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth? Bring forth something with substance.

While Texas Lynn can certainly speak for herself - and how! - I do believe the point she is making is that the Bible culture that so many of 'you' want so desperately to cling to probably believed that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words, the writers of the Bible were not nearly as knowledgeable or savvy as many of 'you' would give them credit for ...whether or not they were 'inspired' by God.

Apollo Celestio · May 7, 2008

KCKID said:
While Texas Lynn can certainly speak for herself - and how! - I do believe the point she is making is that the Bible culture that so many of 'you' want so desperately to cling to believed that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words, the writers of the Bible were not nearly as knowledgeable or savvy as many of 'you' would give them credit for ...whether or not they were 'inspired' by God.

And how does their geocentricism relate to this topic? How were they not knowledgeable on Godly morality, has it 'evolved'?

The Sacramentality of Marriage

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Hylian Knight

Deal with it.

Hylian Knight

catlover

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Deal with it.

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Deal with it.

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deal with it.

Well-Known Member

Deal with it.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency