Premarital Sex

[Paladin D]

You know, this place I used to work at, one of the women who worked there asked me how many girls I had slept with so far. My answer was "None." She responded with surprise and asked me why. I told her that I was saving myself for the woman I would one day marry. She told me that I would 'have problems in my marriage, because I would be inexperienced and not know how to give a woman what she wants.' To which I responded, 'Good.' Most people I have worked with have been totally stumped by the fact that I plan to remain a virgin 'til marriage. But I have had some people around my age tell me, 'I wish I had waited.'

One more thing, It makes a great witnessing tool.

amesome man, keep it up too!

I'm gonna do the same thing actually, and have gotten the same EXACT response. Yet again...how do they get expierence anyway? Of course they sleep around, but there must be a first time.

But that's what marriage is for!

[Jake Huether]

amesome man, keep it up too!

I'm gonna do the same thing actually, and have gotten the same EXACT response. Yet again...how do they get expierence anyway? Of course they sleep around, but there must be a first time.

But that's what marriage is for!

Hah! I waited till I was married too! That's cool!

I was in a car once with a couple of college "friends". They were talking about how stupid it would be for two "virgins" to do it for the first time together!

I think they were just upset that it would neve NEVER be that way for them. Many people make fun of what they themselves can NEVER have.

That is part of the FUN of the "first time" in marriage - and it makes such and unbreakable bond! The fact that you've shared something so "silly" or "stupid" as your inexperience!

And I would tell your co-worker that she needs to leave her cave and enter the real world. Statistics (not just opinions) prove that it's the reverse! Marriages are like zillions of times more likely to disintegrate when the couple has had pre-marital sex. And even moreso when the married couple uses contraception.

[marielapin]

I for one would like the so-called ladies of the world who have sex before marriage and think its okay start wearing some other color besides white at their weddings.

Darn it I worked hard for that color and I hate the fact that it is so cheapened!!!

We both waited until marriage and I can say from experience that there is a reason we are told to do so.

My greatest gift to Jared was myself and his greatest gift to me was himself.

[ReformationNow]

Well, sounds like just another trap that using the "Bible alone" notion can lead you into.

Just noticed this part. A true Christian will never use a part of scripture to defend sin. This is not a result of Sola Scriptura. This is an example of heathens in the Church using the Bible to justify their actions.

[vianney]

And by the way I am a die hard Catholic. But using loaded language like that would offend many protestants I would assume. And we wonder why some ppl come in here and say stuff to offend us. Be considerate ppl. We wouldnt like it if someone said, "Looks like that is the result of following the Pope and worshiping Mary" in a condescending way.

[Dave]

Just noticed this part. A true Christian will never use a part of scripture to defend sin. This is not a result of Sola Scriptura. This is an example of heathens in the Church using the Bible to justify their actions.

Well then, what constitutes a "true" Christian? A Christian is someone who is baptized, even if they don't live their faith. Such a person would be a nominal Christian, but they wouldn't be a pagan.

And who's to say that a "true" Christian will never fall into serious sin or justify it?

[Dave]

And by the way I am a die hard Catholic. But using loaded language like that would offend many protestants I would assume. And we wonder why some ppl come in here and say stuff to offend us. Be considerate ppl. We wouldnt like it if someone said, "Looks like that is the result of following the Pope and worshiping Mary" in a condescending way.

I don't see what I said as loaded. It's just the truth. Your comparison is faulty in that if a person came here and said such a thing about Catholics, they'd be wrong, and what they had stated would've been totally absurd. And what makes you think what I said was condescending?

[ReformationNow]

Well then, what constitutes a "true" Christian? A Christian is someone who is baptized, even if they don't live their faith. Such a person would be a nominal Christian, but they wouldn't be a pagan.

And who's to say that a "true" Christian will never fall into serious sin or justify it?

Just because you are baptized, it doesn't mean you are Christian. Repentance and belief come first. And after salvation, we are COMMANDED to live a life that shows our repentance. You can tell me all you want about how much of a Christian you are, but it doesn't mean a thing until you live it. I can point to both 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' examples of people using the Bible to justify their sin. But the fact remains, IF YOU ARE LIVING A LIFE OF SIN, YOU'RE NOT SAVED. You cannot be a Christian and live in sin. Period! End of discussion. You can't.

[ReformationNow]

I don't see what I said as loaded.  It's just the truth.  Your comparison is faulty in that if a person came here and said such a thing about Catholics, they'd be wrong, and what they had stated would've been totally absurd.  And what makes you think what I said was condescending?

What makes us think it was condescending? The way you said it. It had a sneer to it.

[Jake Huether]

Just because you are baptized, it doesn't mean you are Christian. Repentance and belief come first. And after salvation, we are COMMANDED to live a life that shows our repentance. You can tell me all you want about how much of a Christian you are, but it doesn't mean a thing until you live it. I can point to both 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' examples of people using the Bible to justify their sin. But the fact remains, IF YOU ARE LIVING A LIFE OF SIN, YOU'RE NOT SAVED. You cannot be a Christian and live in sin. Period! End of discussion. You can't.

But Ref., many don't intentionally "use" the bible to justify their sins. Most, I'd venture to guess, read the Bible and think that what they're doing is NOT a sin! That's just it.

[vianney]

Well I dont know about ne one else but with the quotations used around it and the context it was put in the sentance, it came off pretty condescending to me.

[Dave]

No, repentance and belief don't have to come first.

Let's look at Acts 2:38. Peter says to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized":

To begin, let us briefly recall that the original Greek for the cited passage is 'metanoesate kai baptistheto hekastos hymon'. Here, an aorist active imperative (second person plural) verb states a condition (protasis) upon which the fulfillment (apodosis) of another verb in the aorist imperative (third person singular) depends, and hence the mood and person establishes the force of that second verb as "each one of you must be baptized" (cf. D.B. Wallace, "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Zondervan, 1996], p. 486). Furthermore, Peter establishes the partitive genitive pronoun, 'hekastos hymon', as the subject of baptism, with "you" being in the plural.

What does this mean in plain English? Peter addresses the entire audience (2nd person plural imperative) with the message that, if YOU repent, then EACH ONE who is a part of you and yours (partitive genitive plural) must EACH be baptized (3rd person singular imperative). inDouche, he goes on immediately to confirm quite explicitly that the "promise is to you and to your children, and to those who are far off" (Acts 2:39).

That was a huge crowd, a "multitude" from the entire known world (Acts 2:6), that Peter addressed on the Pentecost; surely there people with small children and even infants in the crowd! If a parent with a small child heard and repented, then by the force of the Biblical text, both he and his small child would have been baptized ("each one of you") that very day.

What's more, Peter deliberately tells the crowd that the promise of baptism and the Holy Spirit is not only for them and their children, but "also for those that are far off". What does this mean? Recall that the audience was comprised of devout Jews from around the Hellenistic world. Peter is telling them that not only are they and their children to be baptized, but also the members of their households ("each one of you") that have remained at home, be it however far away.

Hence, Peter's call to baptism in Acts 2:38-39 is entirely consistent with the Biblical norm that when a head of a household converted, that person then had his or her children and entire household baptized into the faith.

Then, in Acts 16:14-15, we learn that a woman named Lydia heard the Gospel while she was by the riverside near Philippi, and the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. The Bible goes on to say, without any further explanation, that Lydia and her household were baptized, and then Lydia begged that Paul and his companions stay with her. According to the Bible alone, and not any theological interpolations, Lydia believed, and thus she and her household were baptized. The Bible says nothing about whether or not the members of the household believed, or even heard the Gospel, prior to their baptism. All that we read is that the head of a household made a decision for Christ, and that as a result of that decision, she and her household were baptized. To say otherwise is to add to the Bible.

By the Bible alone, then, Lydia believed before she was baptized, while the rest of her household was simply baptized. It is important to note that sometimes the Bible makes it clear that Paul preached the Gospel to an inquirer AND his household before baptizing them (e.g., the Philippian Jailer, Acts 16:32-33). But in the case of Lydia, the Bible is states positively only that Paul converted Lydia and then baptized Lydia and her household.

Such is really not all that strange, however, for the Biblical (not to mention sociological) norm of the day was that the head of a household, the paterfamilias, made the decision regarding the beliefs and faith of those who dwelt under his (or her) roof. As Joshua proclaimed, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).

In addition, even at the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry, the disciples of Christ began performing Christian baptisms under the supervision of Jesus (Jn. 3:22, 4:1-2). Nonetheless, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the early disciples were baptized without making a specific confession of faith, either in Jesus as the Christ, or in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How could the people being baptized at the beginning of Jesus' ministry have believed, in their hearts, that Jesus was the Christ, when even Peter and hence the rest of the Twelve Apostles had not yet confessed that Jesus was the Christ (cf. Luke 9:18-20)?

How could the people being baptized have at the beginning of Jesus' ministry possibly believed in the Crucified and Risen Christ when the crucifixion had not yet occurred? Clearly, those early disciples were being properly baptized into the people of God independent of any credal expression of belief in the Jesus as the Crucified and Risen Christ.

As for your statement "IF YOU ARE LIVING A LIFE OF SIN, YOU'RE NOT SAVED. You cannot be a Christian and live in sin. Period! End of discussion. You can't," let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Let's consider a man who gets "saved" and lives a very holy life for 30 years, during which time he serves as a minister. Then one day, after having been married for years, he starts to lust after other women. Soon that lusting gives way to fully cheating on his wife. And that goes on for weeks and weeks until one day, while he's in bed with his paramour, he has a heart attack. It comes on so suddenly that he dies unrepentant. So is he saved or damned?

[Dave]

What makes us think it was condescending? The way you said it. It had a sneer to it.

What makes you think you can see into my heart and how I intended it to mean? There was no sneer to it, but there WAS a "What a shame" to it.

[Dave]

Well I dont know about ne one else but with the quotations used around it and the context it was put in the sentance, it came off pretty condescending to me.

Well, it wasn't.

[cmotherofpirl]

Just noticed this part. A true Christian will never use a part of scripture to defend sin. This is not a result of Sola Scriptura. This is an example of heathens in the Church using the Bible to justify their actions.

THe catch is to define a "true" christian. Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses call themselves christians.

THere is no longer any agreed definition for this word.