HOw do we define fornication?

[Guest]

One argument that I have come across is about the definition of fornication and its relation to marriage. I have read that Paul's remark in regards to fornicating in I Corinthians "Do not join yourself with a harlot" section (I think chapter 6) is a prohibition on non-monogomous relations or sleeping around, especially with the temple prostitutes. If two Christians are committed to each other, love one another, and want to live together, but because they don't have the piece of paper from the State that also happens to be an enemy of Christ and hate him, why can't they have sexual relations? How do we then define fornication? Two people who live together in a committed relationship (man and woman) but don't have the approval of a State that hates the Master? I can't imagine Paul to be saying "Go down and get a marriage license from the Empire that is trying to wipe us out so you won't be fornicators". For about 300 years up until Constantine the church was not friends with the State. Any replies?

[Guest]

You are half way there. You are correct that the piece of paper from the State does not make people married in the eyes of God!

Example: A pastor and his secretary divore thier spouses without biblical cause. They then have a wedding ceremony, and the State issues them a marriage licence. Are they now married according to the bible? No, they are fornicators. Sadly most churches value the State's opinion over God's.

So what makes people married if it is not by the licence? Take those two Christians, bring them before thier family and/or church as witnesses, have them make a public commitment, agree to the penalty for covenant violation, and then let them live "happily ever after". Now they are married before God.

In order to have an enforceable covenant thier must be a witness, a penalty for violation, and a penalty enforcer. That is what the two people in your proposal are missing. Without it one of the two could walk away from the other without any earthly retribution, and that would be unjust.

In our church hopping society there is an advantage to having the legal papers. If one of the two people choose to, they can just walk away from thier spouse, family and/or friends and start a new life in a different location. At least at this point the state offers some monetary protection.

Glenn

[Guest]

Anon,

I like your question, if for the only reason that I hear it so often, and I think it needs to be discussed in an open forum of this nature. The crux of your argument seems to be the feelings that you have for the "State" and the perceived animosity that it has toward Christians. That does not make the laws bad, or the license that it produces evil. Just legal in their eyes for legal purposes. (This does not mean that I believe there are no ungodly laws). It is a way of making your vows a binding contract. I am not convinced that the "state" is necessarily evil, any more than any organization is merely by it's existence of power. A church government could be set up to be a Biblical and godly thing, yet the elders exercising it can be ungodly people who do evil things. I see no where is scripture that says that a governmental institution is bad by its very existence, and therefore, the laws that it creates are bad. You are welcome to disagree with this. The fact is that in scripture we find that God takes credit for establishing governments.

I would encourage you to do a study of I Peter 2:11-16 where in the same context it talks about abstaining from fleshly lusts and having good conduct among the poeple around us to the glory of God, it also exhorts us to "submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether the King supreme, or to governers...". There is no qualification here as to whether it is godly or ungodly rulers, and therefore, I believe would have to include the state.

The idea here is not that we are to submit to ungodly laws that cause us to sin, but that we are to submit where we can to be good examples of godliness. It even tells slaves later on to "be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh." They are being told to submit to godless masters, who are the ruling authority in their lives.

Just because some people use the states marriage lisence for ungodly purposes, does not mean that we are, or that the lisence is in some way ungodly. In fact, I would think just the opposite. We would be giving the unsaved world around us an example of what marriage God intends marriage to be, by being willing to make that public and legal commitment to our wives, and standing by the vow to never break it, "till death do you part."

I think there is also another issue in relationship to our godly example before the world. It is not only the church that views living together as sin before God. Even though the non-Christians don't accept the Bible as authority in their lives, they know what it says about these things. They know that most Christians, and the Bible, condemns them for living together sexually outside of a formally binding and public commitment to each other. God wants us to have our conduct honorable among them for the sake of our witness. We are exhorted elsewhere to give no appearance of sin. Not only are there many non-Christians who will be looking at our lives as a witness, and be aware of any apparent contradictions between our faith and our walk, there are many weaker Christians who will use our example as an excuse to sin.

If it is unpalatable for someone to be married before both the state and the church, I think God would at least want them to be married before the church for their conscience sake and for the sake of their witness. I think Glenn's advice in this case is very good. If even this is unpalatable to someone, I would suggest that they reevaluate their motives for avoiding a public and binding commitment of this nature.

Marshall