Posted on 06/04/2014 10:18:03 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Does the Bible really teach that premarital sex is wrong? (Of course it does! But with Sola Scriptura, that might be unclear!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PsHMNPyI7iI
(Alternate link, via Vimeo.)
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube videos.
TRANSCRIPT ———————-
Does the Bible really teach that premarital sex is wrong? Well, as a Catholic, I know that it does. So, I suppose the real question should be: can a Protestant reasonably think that premarital sex is okay? I think that they can. And here's why.
When the Bible condemns "fornication", the Greek word porneia is used. It is an all-encompassing word for sexual immorality, and this can make things unclear to a Protestant. Take Hebrews 13:4, for example: it uses the Greek word moichos to condemn adultery. That's very clear language. But, then, it uses porneia for fornication. So, the verse can, potentially, be seen as unclear on the latter.
Now, probably the most convincing passage against premarital sex is in 1 Corinthians 6. In this passage, "sexual perversion" is clearly banned. But again, that could be unclear, as "sexual perversion" can even occur within marriage. The thing here against becoming one with prostitutes offers what is probably the best argument. But even that, I think, could be seen as unclear. Paul could easily be seen as referring to literal prostitutes only. Obviously, should an otherwise-devout Christian have sexual relations with a current prostitute, that could cause grave scandal.
And, as far as I know, in every case of premarital sex in the Bible, there is no clear divine punishment for the sexual act. The only obvious penalty is in the realm of financial compensation. Even the Song of Solomon does not explicitly refer only to acts within marriage. In fact, in it, the lovers are separate. They don't seem to live together, and there's evidence that could be understood to mean that they weren't even married (see 8:8, for example). And, judging from Scripture alone, as long as lovers intend to get married someday, their acts together aren't always necessarily bad (see Exodus 22:16, for example).
To someone raised in the Catholic Tradition on this issue -- including many Protestants who have borrowed the Church's ancient teaching on this -- these verses are clear. But to a Sola Scriptura Protestant, who demands formal sufficiency of Scripture, this wiggle-room can shake their world.
Catholics can say, "Well, the Bible is only materially sufficient" -- meaning that, well, while the Bible implicitly or explicitly references every doctrine and dogma, you must still have the Church to interpret it, because the Church is the "pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). But Protestants don't have that luxury. Formal sufficiency demands clarity, and when clarity is not there (as is frequently the case), questions like this arise.
So, in conclusion, to a Catholic, this is clear. But to a Protestant, not so much.
That dumb ole God couldn’t figure out how to make it clear in his scriptures...
My only question is: Are there Catholics actually dumb enough to believe this tripe???
No it's not; you yourself have explained fornication very simply:
...people who have had sex with...other people...who are married to a lot of other people and in the process, have perverted marriage....
Of course using your logic, one could make they argument that if a man and women engage in sex before they are "married" and have not had sex with anyone else ether before or after, then they are without sin.
But then one could also make the argument that if one engages in sex before the "marriage ceremony" and believes it to be a sin, then it is in fact a sin...
Yes, that is in fact the case. By having sex, they became married. Whether their 'marriage' is recognized by the state has nothing to do with whether or not God recognizes their marriage.
If we are talking about a couple from a more tribal culture where it is acceptable for the betrothed to engage in sex, then I think they do not sin.
As I stated before, it is state of mind this is crux of the issue. Christ upped the ante with the New Covenant. The new covenant focuses on intent (faith), less so on the activities (works).
It has only to do with failing to perform Levirate marriage.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
If you were to read the entire chapter you The sin of Onan has only to do with
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
failing to perform Levirate marriage.
would understand why Tamar dressed as
a prostitute and seduced Judah.
OBTW this is in the bloodline of Yah'shua.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
It seems to be clear to most every one that fornication is wrong but in some cases can be righted by marriage, how else could it be righted?
What the Greek word has to do with it is the only thing I do not understand.
About the only time some one comes up with the Greek, Latin or Hebrew words is when they are trying to prove that the bible is not saying what it is saying.
Christians have one thing in common, they will all argue that the scripture is inspired by God and even go as far to say the scripture was wrote by God, but then some will go to any length to prove they say more than they do or less, depending on their ideal.
So I have no doubt Satan is loving this anti solo scripture thing.
And that is the argument I have in favor of solo scripture.
Given that the Catholics claim to have written the Bible themselves, they should be accepting the blame for not making it clear :)
God defines it as one man and one woman
How would you support this position from scripture? Lots of people sin all the time who think nothing of what they are doing. Does this mean that they aren't actually sinning?
“What an insulting, offensive, stupid piece of garbage you have posted.”
Wow, that’s really an over-the-top extreme response.
How about giving other people space for their own beliefs?
IOW, chill out, dude. It’s allowed for other people to have other beliefs, with or without your permission. They are even allowed to state their beliefs, just as you are allowed not to listen.
“look up the sin of Onan”
As I recall, his sin was to fail to impregnate his brother’s widow, as it was his duty to do.
and this can make things unclear to a Protestant.
What an insulting, offensive, stupid piece of garbage you have posted.
Maybe it is his way to get people to read the Bible and to quit adding and taking away from it, God works in mysterious ways.
and this can make things unclear to a Protestant.
What an insulting, offensive, stupid piece of garbage you have posted.
Regarding masturbation, I thought the New Testament mentions “sexual immorality” a number of times. How does a Protestant determine exactly what this includes?
Well there ya go...
Please. We were discussing what constitutes (premarital) sexual sin in the context of cultural differences.
“Perhaps I missed it. In your opinion, for what truth is the author of this article searching?”
It’s in the first sentence at the top of the article on this page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.