asuustrike2009:

And the Bible teaching doesn't mention white wedding either. If the church decided to adopt it then they must have derived their rules from the scriptures on marriage. If intending couple are not willingly to follow,they should opt out as is not a sin to not to have church wedding but becomes sin if the dowry isn't paid

Exactly, that's the point I'm try to make.

Ubenedictus:
You must be the most holy christian ever since you think a christian doesnt sin.

I didn't see him say a xten doesn't sin.

701ecilana:

When we meet God, this excuses we are trying to give in order to enjoy sin, hmmm.

If they have sex using protection, they are sinners, the consequences will catch up with them, but if they are repentant, what shd they do? Give birth to the child first. Do not come and thrust the evidence of your sins before others insisting they go with you.

The child Bethsheba had for David as a result of adultery died even when David repented, cried and begged, God said No. After me married her properly. Then Solomon came. Biko nu.

Na wao for us o. Disobedience in the hearts of men

Well said... i hear u

mikedimeji:

Pls help me advice him better. This is as a result of erroneous teaching out there. Someone even said the moment u give ur life to Christ heaven becomes automatic irrespective of anything u do along the line, what can I says than to laugh but I was happy everybody disagree with him that day. Some people's Christianity is so mechanical that u ask urself is this how it was done in the days of Christ.

may God save us from hypocrites and heretics.

[quote author=Ubenedictus post=59027231] It means your church simply lack the power to pronounce forgiveness for the repentant!
if your church cant welcome the repentant then it has no business to be called a church.
You have a strange concept of the term church. A true church disciplines erring members to preserve purity in the church.

Seeing...
Nice thoughts (well reasoned and delivered arguments);
Preconcieved thoughts (reasoned arguments never changes such minds/positons);
and then totally off-the-hook wrong imbibed notions touted as doctrines.....

keeps one wondering why 2/more people understanding the same english language (I know some don't assimilate or take time to read properly first) and with benefit of historical perspective to issues at hand like to argue SO and TOO much as we do about our bible and the doctrines fashioned from it. Sometimes we end such discuss annoyingly with "when we get to heaven, we will know what's/who is correct". Wisdom the bible says is justified by her children (Lk 7:35 ASV) Pls stop the arguments.

e.g. we all (should by now) agree that nobody here is condoning fornication and no church or man of God is biblically joining anybody (or any persons).

why then are some still trying to base something on nothing by arguing that the refusal is because it's 3 people involved and not 2?!

The point is the ministers/pastors have no biblically authorized powers for such in the first place. So arguing it's because it's 3 is tenacious and begging the question, they clearly are not in the confines of scriptural authority in the first instance not to talk of building doctrines on it. Remember 2 Peter 1:20 KJV: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"- Nobody should mention the Holy Spirit as the source of these conflicting messages. It is our beclouded minds and reasoning.
@TheUmbra I think further arguments is just begging the question and unnecesary - THEY JUST HAVE NO BIBLICAL REASON. Period.

BUT REALLY BRETHREN Heb 3:13 o!, WHEN ARE WE GOING LEAVE THESE ARGUMENTS TO FOCUS ON "MORTIFYING THIS FLESH & IT'S WORKS"?
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO BECOME REAL SALT TO OUR WORLD? with relevant contribution or solution to governance, education, health, business, domestic violence, intolerance, security or law & order etc.?
The Master is coming soon o!

[quote author=Ageco post=59089050][/quote]a true Church not only disciplines but as accepts the sinner who repents and wishes to do the right thing.

The discipline is lifted when erring member repents. But as for church wedding with a pregnant bride is unacceptable. The man will just have to go and pay the dowry to parents of his wife and that's it. No church wedding

mikedimeji:

This exactly is what I'm pointing out to u, NEVER SAY NEVER. no Christian is self sufficient, our sufficiency is of the Lord. It's only Grace that makes man overcome. People that are stronger in faith have fallen due to one thing or the order it doesn't have to be sexual sin. they keep asking for more grace that's why Paul said those of u that think in ur mind that u are strong (self confidence, standing strong) should take heed less u fall. Mind u it's not actually bad to fall but it becomes bad when u fall and remain there. So NEVER SAY NEVER.

We are actually here for a case of impregnating my fiancee before tying the knot legally. That's where I am assuring that Never will it happen. I can't stop sayin it. It will NEVER EVER EVER EVER happen. Alright? By God's. Sufficient grace.
As for the general Christian life, your advice is good, everyone has to take heed lest he...

fromnigeria:

We are actually here for a case of impregnating my fiancee before tying the knot legally. That's where I am assuring that Never will it happen. I can't stop sayin it. It will NEVER EVER EVER EVER happen. Alright? By God's. Sufficient grace.
As for the general Christian life, your advice is good, everyone has to take heed lest he...

you remind me of Peter when Jesus told him he will deny him 3 times before the cock crows. Just pray for God's grace, thats all

TheUmbra:
The OP is right! There's no biblical backing restricting two consenting people (man and woman) from getting married if the woman is pregnant for him.

In fact I put forward the closest scripture regarding this as follows:

"Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married, if they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives". Deut 22:28-29

Man has always overstepped his bounds and authority and pastors and priests of today are no exception.

Did the scripture you quoted said they must appear before the altar of God for matrimony?

TheUmbra:


I'll like to give you a little illustration which follows thus:

A man once lived in a little Christian community. Most people living in that community were mostly decent and GODly people who practice their Christian faith with all sincerity as far as their understanding leads them.

One day, the man became hungry and stole his neighbour's goat and ate it. He was caught and reported to the king who doubles as the town's priest.

The man pleaded and offered to repay the stolen goat but the king refused and banished him for bringing such shame and abominable act of stealing in a GODly community. The man was denied the opportunity to right his wrong.

My point is this; a man who brings a lady he impregnated to church in order to make her his wife does well. He has taken the first step of repentance, to right his wrong and give the woman a befitting place in his life. A church denying him this opportunity of righting his wrong does not act in the wisdom of the HOLY SPIRIT, but from the legalistic yoke of a Pharisee.

That was not the principle of CHRIST and the adulterous woman in John 8. Slut-shaming a woman by denying her the opportunity to a church wedding because she's pregnant as a result of fornication has no scriptural base. It spurned from man's self-righteous act and extra-scriptural misapplication.

It is a different matter when a Christian brother and sister are caught in fornication and the church decides to discipline them.

And what gives a church the right to ask intending couples to do a compulsory pregnancy test? What sheer arrogance and pastoral overreach! Do they go over the board making sure every money donated in their offertory coffers is untainted? Bloody 21st century Pharisees!

There was never a direct or implied command from GOD to any priest or pastor to join any couple in matrimony. And none of the patriarch in scripture ever did. Not Moses, not CHRIST nor any of HIS disciples.

There's no scriptural reference from where a priest or pastor can draw his authority to declare couple husband and wife. Church marriage was man's creation.

But it's a good thing if only priests and pastors would stop hijacking the roles of parents and act humbly by blessing the union after obtaining the consent of the couple and of their parents.

Although, you tend to be right but I will not absolutely agree with you.
When pastors go ahead joining pregnant bride in holy matrimony before the whole eye of the congregation, what example are they laying for the upcoming ones? Wont they see it as a norm and won't they want to practice same?. I see as a means of fumigating uncleanness and restoring fear of God.
When the church refuses to join them together, is has no effect on their marriage as they choose to join themselves elsewhere.
Once, this is accepted, the church will continue to b polluted more and more.

And for those that got away with it, they have God to judge them by defiling orders.

TheUmbra:



You miss the whole point and the moral of my story.

The goat stolen is the woman and she belongs to her parents. The thief is the man who had sex with her without fulfilling the matrimonial requirement of dowry.

Now when he's caught and he's willing to pay for his misdeeds by marrying the girl properly, pregnancy shouldn't be an obstacle in such a case. There's no scriptural backing to this madness. Make no mistake, we're not in support of fornication, and no church can really stop fornication. But when two fornicators decide to get married and a church denies them this right because the woman is pregnant, there's no wisdom or direction from the HOLY SPIRIT in such decision.

Now in response to your earlier post, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was not just referring to a rape case. It also addresses two consensual fornicators. Consider Exodus 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and has sex with her, he must pay the customary bride price and marry her"

I'll point you to yet another scriptural precedent:

Mary was pregnant, she wasn't married to Joseph. They were only engaged. No bride price had been paid. Yet Mary's tommy was visibly pregnant that even Joseph noticed it.

No one in the community called Mary names. They assumed Joseph was responsible since both Joseph and Mary's family have accepted their engagement. Mary was not ridiculed or shamed for being pregnant without getting married.

Fast forward to our modern day church and Mary who was so exemplary in the church as well as in the community gets pregnant without being married! She'd have suffered humiliation and human judgement which has no meaning in the sight of GOD.

Again, no one is in support of fornication, which is a sin, but denying couples the right to church marriage due to pregnancy compounds the problem. It's not scriptural and has no biblical backing.


Your claim "church wedding should be 'bed undefile'" is a confused and mixed up paradigm which addresses adultery for married couples.

Until you understand that a pastor/priest have no real ordination to bond any couple in matrimony, you'd not come to the truth about marriage.

You are contradicting yourself. If you are not in support of fornication then is no point debating or arguing on the pregnancy church marriage things again. Otherwise, you will give room for misinfornation which some might pick and never recover from.

Omoluabi16:
some of you would get bored and start trying say nonsense. As a Christian you should know every sin has consequences. God forgave david but the child still died. Instead we should focus more on the root cause and try to prevent pregnancy before marriage. you can't expect a church wedding with your tummy protruding like hell.

I actually think that David's child dying was a pisitive.

A bastard to the 10th generation couldn't be king so if the son survived, Bethsheba's line couldn't succeed David.

Why another of David's line wasn't /couldn't be picked, no idea.

bukatyne:


I actually think that David's child dying was a pisitive.

A bastard to the 10th generation couldn't be king so if the son survived, Bethsheba's line couldn't succeed David.

Why another of David's line wasn't /couldn't be picked, no idea.

Lol. Are you a christian? King Solomon is a product of Bathsheba and David. The child died not because it was a bastard but David had to pay. If you check out the line of Jesus, there were so many imperfect people. Rahab, David's great grandmother was described as a harlot.

God's ways are not our ways..but the real 'heir' to the throne adonijah turned out to be unfit for rulership. Amnon, Absalom, and the likes didn't have the requisite qualities.
After the child died.. then Solomon came.

Omoluabi16:
Lol. Are you a christian? King Solomon is a product of Bathsheba and David. The child died not because it was a bastard but David had to pay. If you check out the line of Jesus, there were so many imperfect people. Rahab, David's great grandmother was described as a harlot.

God's ways are not our ways..but the real 'heir' to the throne adonijah turned out to be unfit for rulership. Amnon, Absalom, and the likes didn't have the requisite qualities.
After the child died.. then Solomon came.

I did not say why the child had to die; I said I thought it was positive.

If the child lived, he couldn't be king till his 10th generation.

Check out Perez (incestuous son of Judah & Tamar) to David..... 10 generations.

Remember that part of Jacob's blessings to Judah was that he will rule (parapharsed).

@thread: I agree with OP.

Never made sense why the Church wouldn't wed a pregnant woman and marry a non-virgin.

And some churches frown at pregnancy even after traditional marriage which is truly the most important one.