Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?
Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"
Should the Church be involved in having marriage defined as God ordained it or not?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, Mar 16, 2015.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Ain't nobody worried about the state. -
It is not mixing church and state because the pulpit is not a stage for the world. The only thing the Church has any business telling the world is the truth of the gospel. -
-
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The big issues is for taxes - ie filing jointly......
Also, for government service - especially when being sent overseas - the government only pays for your legal spouse...... -
AAAAAAAAAAAMEN, Brother!!!!
:type::type::type: -
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Scripture speaks on the subject, and if the Church is to remain true to it, it should too.
"Church and State" separation is a concept designed by men, not a principle set by Scripture. -
The civil magistrates are the ministers of God, for the administration of law. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"My Kingdom is not of this world" - Jesus (John 18:36)
Jesus did not come and advocate a political movement to promote, teach or enforce His teachings. The Kingdom (rule) of God is not a human invention, nor can be manipulated by humanity. We are called to be citizens of the Kingdom (rule) of God and the secular corollary which fits very nicely with New Testament principles calls for true religious liberty which is politically realized through separation of church and state. That is a Christian principle - specifically a Baptists principle - that began to take hold during the Radical Reformation.
It is though a Baptist understanding of the scriptures that the doctrine of separation of church and state developed and eventually found its expression in the laws of government. The only US colony to be founded by a Baptist was Rhode Island, and it had separation of church and state written into its founding documents. Eventually the founders realized what a good idea it was (taught and prodded by Baptists) and it became the law in Virginia and a few years later became the First Amendment to the Constitution. -
The license is not the state's doorway into marriage. Marriage is the foundation of all civil law, and the state can and must protect and maintain the institution, and render justice in the instances a marriage is broken. A license has nothing whatever to do with that. The objection most folks have to a marriage license is the effect of making the state a third party in a marriage contract. -
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
In the zeal to stop gay marriage with the so-called "Defense of Marriage" legislation, those who oppose gay marriage actually made it inevitable by setting up clear legal precedents that the state has the right to legislate who and who cannot be legally married. Since those who experience same sex attraction are also fully citizens and share in the rights all citizens share, they can now be legally permitted to marry. To be blunt, it is just a matter of time before it hits the Supreme Court and becomes the law of the land.
I pointed this out to a bunch of "Defense of Marriage" zealots many years ago, but they apparently had such a short view of history and were caught up in the excitement of "doing something" that they did exactly the wrong thing to do if you are opposed to gay marriage.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should throw out most of the regulations on marriage and create the category of civil unions. If one wants to be married, you can go to a church, religious or secular institution to do a marriage. However, to have legal status with your union, you much register your union with the government. That won't prevent "gay marriage," but it insulates churches from legal issues regarding discrimination against those whom the church cannot marry. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
However, I'm not sure why my views are being called out here. -
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of polygamy, but I am not sure you can build a case as laid out above from the Bible.
Exod. 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Deut. 21:15-17 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
David and Solomon certainly had more than one wife.
Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 1 of 2