Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | DocTrinsograce | 135080 | ||
First of all, rightly or wrongly, the government is attempting to provide for you in lieu of your having a husband. Were you to marry, it is your husband who ought to be providing for you. If it appears that he will be unable to do so, then he would not be a fit mate. If he supported you in your proposed plan, he would be of questionable character, making him unfit in that sense. Secondly, what you are proposing is concealing from the government your true marital status. Consequently you would be receiving money from them that would not properly belong to you, making you cupable of stealing, adding another vice to lying. Thirdly, you would be failing to submit to the government in a matter over which God has granted them authority. Indirectly, therefore, you would be resisting the Lord. Finally, in the eyes of the law, this would be considered fraudulent behavior, something to be more expected by the world than the children of God! Why not take the plunge and watch how the Lord will provide for your every need as you seek above all other things to walk righteously before man and God. Eph 4:25a Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour 1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Pet 2:13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135087 | ||
Doc, You stated: "First of all, rightly or wrongly, the government is attempting to provide for you in lieu of your having a husband. Were you to marry, it is your husband who ought to be providing for you. If it appears that he will be unable to do so, then he would not be a fit mate." Perhaps I had miscommunicated, but I am male. Would you conversely suggest that it is the wife's responsibility to provide for the husband, if he is physically handicapped? Does this work both ways, or is it solely the husband who is required to support the wife? Shall the wife support the husband? Or would you further argue that a permanently medically-handicapped male would be unfit for marriage, if unable to generate an independent income? - You further stated: "Secondly, what you are proposing is concealing from the government your true marital status. Consequently you would be receiving money from them that would not properly belong to you, making you cupable of stealing, adding another vice to lying." Actually, there would be absolutely no concealment whatsoever from the government. If such a church-ordained marriage were to occur, it would be very much public. Please be aware that the government does not prohibit marriages, which are solely church-ordained. No concealment would be present. - You further stated: "Thirdly, you would be failing to submit to the government in a matter over which God has granted them authority. Indirectly, therefore, you would be resisting the Lord. Finally, in the eyes of the law, this would be considered fraudulent behavior, something to be more expected by the world than the children of God!" Again, the government does not ban church-ordained marriages (for example, between homosexuals, although this would be purely a heterosexual marriage). Rather, the government would simply not extend marriage tax benefits, under the guise of legal marriage authorization. In other words, although the government does not support such marriages, it does not ban them either. Again, there would be no legal violation occuring. - Lastly, you provided three scripture units: Eph 4:25a Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour No concealment of any kind would be taking place here. Rather, a full public proclamation of a church-ordained marriage would be present. 1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Would a medically handicapped male, unable to work, also be termed as being worse than an infidel? 1 Pet 2:13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake The law does not necessitate church-ordained marriages to also be state-ordained, as in the case of homosexual marriages, for example. Again, however, we are here speaking of heterosexual marriage. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
3 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Searcher56 | 135096 | ||
Reighnskye, Each point is on "you (further) stated" Point 1 - Is your limitation on work based on what the gov't says or your phyiscal limitations? - Joni Tada works, as well as her husband Ken. She may be able to give you direction how to work. So your point has no merit. Point 2 There is concealment, because you will FAIL to get a marriage licence. A pastor's actions don't make you married. So your point has no merit. Point 3 The gov't will not recognize homosexual marriages because of the law. Homosexual marriages are only recognized by false churches, since it violates Scripture. So your point has no merit. Now my questions ... 1. Do you FAIL to follow what Romans 13:1 says? That is to follow the direction of the gov't, which says you need a marriage certificate to be married? 2. What is the purpose of marriage? 3. Do you not trust the Lord to provide for you if you are married "in the eyes of the gov't"? It appears you want money over the Master ... is that true? |
||||||
4 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135101 | ||
Searcher, Hear are responses to your three following points: "Point 1 - Is your limitation on work based on what the gov't says or your phyiscal limitations? - Joni Tada works, as well as her husband Ken. She may be able to give you direction how to work. So your point has no merit." I have been certified as legally handicapped, by express determination of the government. This determination is based upon my physical limitations. Basically, my internal organs have been leaking large amounts of blood for the past twelve years, wherein I operate on one half of a blood supply. This generates physical weakness, which medical professionals have not been able to correct. Further, it is neither medically professional nor religiously biblical to compare medical afflictions of different people, one against the other. Simply because Joni Tada works does not mean that all handicapped people can work. This is because not all medically handicapped people are trained public speakers as she is. Further, your suppositions, that medically impaired people should independently generate an income as she does, are not supported by Joni Tada herself. Your first point is contrary to Joni Tada's whole message, so you seem to have missed the emphasis of her ministry entirely. Thus your first point lacks biblical merit. "Point 2 There is concealment, because you will FAIL to get a marriage licence. A pastor's actions don't make you married. So your point has no merit." Again, you are operating on a supposition here that is neither legally or biblically accurate. The government does not force or necessitate two people to get married, whether the church marries them or not. Nor will the government threaten to incarcerate or fine a couple, if they do not obtain a legal marriage certificate. Furthermore, not all churches view political authority as being greater than God's authority. God is the one who marries a couple, through the authority of the church. Scripture does not particularly necessitate state legal authorization to validate a marriage. Please provide biblical basis for your second point, if indeed you believe that such even exists. "Point 3 The gov't will not recognize homosexual marriages because of the law. Homosexual marriages are only recognized by false churches, since it violates Scripture. So your point has no merit." I have never suggested that the government recognizes homosexual marriages, nor do I believe that it should. And although false churches recognize homosexual marriages, the same cannot also be said of heterosexual marriages, when making references to the church. I have not originally made the point that you had suggested I made. My original point was that church-ordained marriages are not prohibited by the government, and are thus not a violation of Romans 13:2. Church-ordained marriages (whether homosexual or heterosexual) are not illegal. And although homosexual marriages are unscriptural, heterosexaul marriages are not always so. Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye PS. Please see the next post for answers to your questions. |
||||||