Marriage.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But when it comes to Quakers.....

Originally Posted by Aquila

Quakers .....

Originally Posted by Aquila

In fact, for old world groups like the Quakers...

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers....

Originally Posted by Aquila

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

No, he is a Faker, not a Quaker.

This guy lives in the world of nonsense.

Louis Farrakhan is more Christain than Aquila.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

Your marriage isn't recognized by the state as solemnized.

Common law isn't recognized in Ohio. Also if your Quaker, or House Churcher isn't licensed by Ohio your marriage is null and void. Grow up.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila how did you get your divorce?

Did the Quakers, house church elders, or the court house grant you a divorce?

Were you divorced before you ever got together with your girlfriend?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

Did this Quaker marriage take place in Ohio?

I fail to see what bearing your scenario and question has on my post which you quoted.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Did this Quaker marriage take place in Ohio?

I fail to see what bearing your scenario and question has on my post which you quoted.

It's called grasping at straws elder.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

One can say that it doesn't compromise one's own faith. Because interpretations of the Bible differ.

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Quakers do not believe swearing or making oaths, so they refuse to swear in on court proceedings. They also do not offer sworn testimony, they will only promise to affirm or deny with a "yay or nay" answer. They feel the court system is therefore sinful and is not honoring God. They also believe that to "solemnly swear" is to imply that one could tend to be untruthful otherwise, thus they believe that it damages Christian testimony. This is why Quakers seek to avoid the civil courts of this unbelieving secular society if at all possible.

In civil marriage, the "vows" are also something they take issue with. They do not make "vows" at their weddings because they believe it implies that one would otherwise break a promise. And so they offer "promises" to one another.

Biblically speaking, marriage is between a man and a woman. In addition, to divorce and remarry is adultery (some interpretations of Scripture believe in exceptions). The biblical marriage never required an agent of the state or a state court to dissolve a marriage. Biblical marriage also requires grounds for a divorce in order to affirm the innocent party and identify the offending party. Also, the Bible explicitly states that God joins a man and woman together, not the state. Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and God. It is a private contract, agreement, or arrangement. Jewish traditions that include a written contract (a ketubah) allow the contract to stipulate all expectations of marriage, grounds for parting, and terms of any separation. These expectations, grounds, and terms are drafted by the husband and his father (and sometimes with the aid of a rabbi). The bride to be and her father review the terms and must choose to agree or disagree, and present any clauses to be included or removed. Thus the marriage is entirely on the couple's terms or their parent's terms. No outside power other than Scripture can determine those terms and conditions.

Civil marriage is quite different. The civil marriage laws permits divorce and remarriage at will, which is a violation of Scripture. The state permits "no fault" divorce, which is a violation of Scripture. Civil marriage contains vows (which as noted above is against the interpretations of many old world forms of Christianity). Civil marriage is a binding secular contract between a man, a woman, and the state; God isn't a party legally included. Should the marriage fail, civil marriage requires one to go before unbelieving secular courts, which is a violation of Scripture according to old world interpretations of Scripture (such as those held by Quakers, German Baptists, and others). In a civil marriage it is the state that sets all terms and conditions, not the couple. In addition, civil courts allow for gay marriage.

The unbiblical nature of civil marriage has been challenging to Christians since its beginnings. Christians and churches have taken issue with kings and royalty who used their state authority to authorize, partake in, and legalize marriages that were unbiblical. Churches have taken issue with the institutional controls of the state churches in various countries that refuse to acknowledge the marriages of those who are not a part of that given Christian religion. For example, in England marriages were legally sanctioned by the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church, being a state church, set legal recognition strictly for Anglican marriages. Doing this meant that all parties were required to be married by an Anglican Priest. This meant that marriages among Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican religions were denounced as being illicit. And so this is why many early writings about Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican groups included the charge of "fornication" and "licentious behavior". In nations wherein the church and state were mingled, this was a serious charge that could lead to fines, corporal punishment, or even execution. And so the civil court systems in these countries used institutionalized marriage as a means to persecute other religions. Quakerism was founded during these dark times. And it is for this reason that Quakers vehemently stand against any government regulation of marriage by reserving their right to perform marriages that are essentially outside of the authority of civil law and government. It, to them, is an issue of human liberty. The right to marry in God's eyes, as they see it, is a natural right of every human being. It isn't a civil right granted by government in which one must be "licensed" to partake in.

That brings us to an interesting point. The "licensing" of marriage. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Therefore, by passing laws that require a marriage license, states deemed marriage in and of itself... "illegal". Think about that. The government made the entire covenant of marriage illegal. And so, states began to refuse to recognize marriages under common law, which was the oldest form of marriage going farther back than ancient Greece. This seized marriage and took it out of the hands of couples, churches, parents, and communities... firmly placed it into the government's grasp. But why did the government do this? History tells us why.

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Remember, only mixed couples had to qualify for a marriage license to overcome laws prohibiting mixed marriages. Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

So, the "marriage license" is essentially an old holdout of institutionalized racism that was expanded to include all citizens. Quakers have always been known as pacifists and strong abolitionists, advocates for social justice and equal rights for all men, seeing that we are all created equal by our Creator and are endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights. And to Quakers, the right to marry is a natural law granted by the Creator, and so any state institution that impedes that is violating human liberty. When marriage licensing began in America, Quakers denounced it's racist and as in England, rejected state control over man's natural right to marry. As states abolished common law marriage, the natural right to marry without needing to appeal to or involve the government was abolished. But Quakers hold strong, still performing unions that are not registered with the state.

Many would ask is it illegal for Quakers and other libertarian minded Christians to do this? Not if the minister or elder involved isn't licensed by the state. Most don't realize that once a minister is licensed by the state they become an "agent of the state" and must uphold all state statutes as part of their ministry. Many ministers are discovering how treacherous this truly is now that gays have a civil right to civil marriage. This is why Quakers and other libertarian minded Christian ministers traditionally DO NOT seek to be state licensed ministers. As long as the elder or minister isn't an agent of the state, they can indeed bless couples as being married in the eyes of God without registering the union with the state.

I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

Modern marriage is also the institute of gay marriage now, so God should honor this marriage law of the land in 2017?

I think not.

Modern definitions of marriage law is honorable to God in 2017?

God does not honor these reprobate laws.

Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

The secular licensing is merely for a tax write off etc.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Sean

I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

I'm not sure but I think it originated in Europe, possibly England, during the medieval period? However, most people outside the nobility in England and the Colonies generally got married with no officiants, ministerial or secular, up into the mid 1800s or so.

Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

Not necessarily. There are certain unions that are prohibited even among opposite sex candidates, like incest. In such cases, the union is not marriage, regardless of whether Jed Clampett, the local bishop, or the local judge approve.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sean

I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

Modern marriage is also the institute of gay marriage now, so God should honor this marriage law of the land in 2017?

I think not.

Modern definitions of marriage law is honorable to God in 2017?

God does not honor these reprobate laws.

Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

The secular licensing is merely for a tax write off etc.

Pretty much.

If a couple wants the government benefits of marriage, they need to file their marriage with the government. If they are not interested in those benefits, they are not required to file their marriage with the government.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

In the name of religious liberty, the Quakers serve as an excellent "example".

Here's a non-Quaker couple's story. They are liberty minded conservatives:

How Do I Get Married Without A License?
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-...out-a-license/

Here's an ebook on Sovereign Christian Marriage (Non-Quaker):

Sovereign Christian Marriage
https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/Sov...anMarriage.htm

Here's an article by a conservative independent pastor:

Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
http://www.hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

And many churches call these "commitment ceremonies", here's an example of one of these:

Religious Commitment Ceremony
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...ceremony/9512/

I could post many, many, more non-Quaker examples of this practice. But you get the point. It's not strictly a Quaker thing. However, the Quakers have been doing it the longest.