Virginity testing.

[Classik]

We were sitting at angle 90 degrees to each other.

"In your church, do they conduct HIV test before couples are joined," I asked.
"Sure! That is a must," she answered.

If one of the two is postive to HIV what will happen? I thought. Of course the answer is simple: you may go ahead and get married or go your separate ways. I think only a few would really get married despite the result. [There is a case where God asked them (a male and a female) Go ahead and get married! They obeyed the voice of God and got married. God healed them. It is a miracle. I'm not kidding. Doctors confirmed them free of the virus.


Looking towards her direction again, my head in a gesture, I said: "And if someone has a baby out of wedlock?"

She smiled and said: "Well. My church won't wed you - they will only bless your marriage."

I figured out that by 'My church won't wed you' she meant there's not going to be the usual formal church wedding. No joining together of a couple - because you are already one body with each other.

Again she said: "If you both are defiled (either the two in question or with completely different people), and you testify you are not virgins..."

I watched her pause here. She seemed a little uncomfortable. She however proceeded to saying:

"...My church won't wed you either."

I call this thread virginity testing. What do you think about such a practice? To me, it seems biblical not to go ahead and wed them when they are already one body. I mean, once two people (a male and a female) are bonded sexually, a bond occurs. They have been joined by this singular act.

Question is, a lot of people have 'known' more than one partners. Are they also joined to each of them???

I can't find the passage that says (I paraphrase) Once you bond sexually never separate from that partner.

 

[Danus]

There are plenty ways to read into the bible fundamentally. However, when it comes to marriage we can reasonably deduce that Gods plan ideally is for one man and one woman, and that when the two are joined sexually they share an intimacy that bonds them to some degree. It's something that plays on the spiritual nature of people. Sex is not a casual act. It is a far more serious expression. When these things are treated casually then they become casual and meaningless.

I'm willing to say that most, the majority that is, of couples marring today have had sexual relations prior to, and many with more than one partner. Much of that is due to our society. We have means for birth control and sex is treated as more of a sport, or activity.

As for a church conducting or blessing a marriage, we should realize that the basis of Christianity is as much about Love, Mercy, Grace, and Forgiveness, as it is biblical truth, since these things are biblical truth. So while I can not see a church blessing or performing a marriage for any couple outside a man and a woman, I hardly see prior sexual relationships and indiscretions as means to deny a marriage, if we are to look to the greater good.

 

[felix]

After the first partner, if he or she leaves him/her and goes with other partner/s, they are actually doing adultery and their children are illegitimate in God's sight as per Scriptures.

The law requires the parents of the bride to have the first blood of the intercourse to prove the virginity of their daughter.

Deut 22:15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out [the evidence of] the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.

How many of today's parents can do that? Of course, today's parents (mostly in the west) what their children to get involved in adultery by actively allowing extraordinary freedom to be alone and go out with opposite sex. The reason for this is, they themselves do not have the voice to rebuke and disciple their children as they themselves were not proper and they current marriage itself may not be with their first partners. It is this horrible state of today's so called Christians, living in adultery not even realizing it.

 

[Danus]

After the first partner, if he or she leaves him/her and goes with other partner/s, they are actually doing adultery and their children are illegitimate in God's sight as per Scriptures.

The law requires the parents of the bride to have the first blood of the intercourse to prove the virginity of their daughter.

Deut 22:15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out [the evidence of] the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.

How many of today's parents can do that? Of course, today's parents (mostly in the west) what their children to get involved in adultery by actively allowing extraordinary freedom to be alone and go out with opposite sex. The reason for this is, they themselves do not have the voice to rebuke and disciple their children as they themselves were not proper and they current marriage itself may not be with their first partners. It is this horrible state of today's so called Christians, living in adultery not even realizing it.

"so called Christians in the west"? .......Felix, your example and use of scripture Deuteronomy 22:15, shows how many people can not assimilate OT civil law with NT fulfillment.This practice found in the scripture you posted, still takes place and most rule Muslim cultures. The couple goes off to their private place after the ceremony. They lay a clean cloth down, to which the young bride sits. the act occurs and the evidence of "virginity" is left on the cloth and presented to the elders. They do this because they are still living under that type of law of types and shadows. They do not know or understand how Christ has fulfilled the law and so these things are necessary to them. We have many "so called Christians"...doing the same thing with OT law for the same reasons.

 

[farouk]

I think this is an extension of the thread on looking for a virgin to marry, and some of the issues involved.

Let's just think of a civil marriage at a government office, done duly.

If it's unbelievers who are married via this route, they are no less married than believers are.

If it's believers, who, for whatever reason, go with this civil route as well, again, they are no less married than unbelievers are.

I think there is a lot of superstition wrapped up in and around wedding ceremonies. Of course they are lovely. Of course it's 'nice' in an environment where there are Christians. Of course brides often like to wear white; of course some brides want to wear sleeveless and low neck gowns; of course some brides want to cover their tattoos when they wear their sleeveless gowns; of course, other brides are delighted for their, and their bridesmaids', tattoos to be shown, when they are wearing their gowns, etc., etc. Or if it's not strictly superstition, then there are many pleasant customs, not directly related to the essential elements of marriage.

But once one gets to the level of people being legally married before the law AND before God, Scripturally, ... but then people start to dispute whether the marriage was 'blessed' ecclesiastically, or what some clergy supposedly think of pre-existing carnal acts, etc. (I do think virginity is valuable): really, people are going to get into all sorts of unnecessary bother and trouble and unedifying controversy about people who are properly married anyway and can now by the grace of God move on.

 

[handy]

If premaritial sex is a sin (and I believe it is) and one has asked for and received forgiveness for that sin (which all in Christ will be) and God promises that He will forgive our sins and remember them no more (Isa 43:25, Heb 8:12, 10:17), then why would the church, who is to be submissive to God as a wife to her husband, remember the sin's her Husband chooses to forget?

 

[farouk]

If premaritial sex is a sin (and I believe it is) and one has asked for and received forgiveness for that sin (which all in Christ will be) and God promises that He will forgive our sins and remember them no more (Isa 43:25, Heb 8:12, 10:17), then why would the church, who is to be submissive to God as a wife to her husband, remember the sin's her Husband chooses to forget?

handy:

Exactly; and this is also the example of the experience of the prophet Hosea. God uses such means to teach us His immense love and patience with sinners. Of course, we are living in New Testament times; the same lesson applies, I think.

 

[Classik]

....and God promises that He will forgive our sins and remember them no more (Isa 43:25, Heb 8:12, 10:17), then why would the church, who is to be submissive to God as a wife to her husband, remember the sin's her Husband chooses to forget?

That's the problem. She says her church believes the two have already got married (on their own)

 

[Classik]

Such a test might prompt people who desperately need to be wedded (just like others)to lie.

 

[farouk]

That's the problem. She says her church believes the two have already got married (on their own)

There might be a related issue of, if they are not meeting regularly at a particular local church, then the fact that a couple living together, either now or in the past, now wanting to get married, might not reflect the usual practice of allowing the use of the building. (Or maybe it goes to something doctrinal; some commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7 make suggestions not dissimilar to what you are saying, though I don't agree with the practical interpretation, necessarily.)

 

[farouk]

Such a test might prompt people who desperately need to be wedded (just like others)to lie.

Well, lying is another matter; and no Christian can be responsible for the unwitting consequences of someone else lying.

What I would also comment would be, since it's so easy for couples, with proper documentation, to get married in a civil ceremony, why is it so pivotal in their minds for a particular local church to be involved?

 

[Classik]

....why is it so pivotal in their minds for a particular local church to be involved?

A standard?

 

[felix]

"so called Christians in the west"? .......Felix, your example and use of scripture Deuteronomy 22:15, shows how many people can not assimilate OT civil law with NT fulfillment.This practice found in the scripture you posted, still takes place and most rule Muslim cultures. The couple goes off to their private place after the ceremony. They lay a clean cloth down, to which the young bride sits. the act occurs and the evidence of "virginity" is left on the cloth and presented to the elders. They do this because they are still living under that type of law of types and shadows. They do not know or understand how Christ has fulfilled the law and so these things are necessary to them. We have many "so called Christians"...doing the same thing with OT law for the same reasons.

While the law is fulfilled, that does not mean we can have premaritial sex and not marrying the same person. I am in no way suggesting that custom but the spirit of why it is written by God - To make sure they remain virgins until marriage!

 

[felix]

If premaritial sex is a sin (and I believe it is) and one has asked for and received forgiveness for that sin (which all in Christ will be) and God promises that He will forgive our sins and remember them no more (Isa 43:25, Heb 8:12, 10:17), then why would the church, who is to be submissive to God as a wife to her husband, remember the sin's her Husband chooses to forget?

If premaritial sex is a sin, and they repented and God indeed granted forgiveness, how and when did they got divorced for them to marry another and on what basis were they divorced, if scripture teaches that they are married as soon as they had sex ?

Forgiveness for premaritial sex does not mean they have the liberty to marry another. It means, they had to proceed with marrying the same person because they are still married.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If a couple is born again, they should be counciled and then married.
The rules of the church should be secondary to showing the love of God.
Refusing to marry them would only drive them away.

 

[Danus]

While the law is fulfilled, that does not mean we can have premaritial sex and not marrying the same person. I am in no way suggesting that custom but the spirit of why it is written by God - To make sure they remain virgins until marriage!

And I am in no way saying premarital sex is not a sin just because Christ fulfilled the law. What I am saying is that it is forgivable, as are all sins, because Christ has fulfilled the law and that the church should recognize this. Just as we are forgiven, we are to forgive.

 

[handy]

The fatal flaw in the argument that the bible somehow teaches that sex automatically makes two people "married" is that there would then be no fornication, only adultery. Yet, while I've never seen any clear teaching that equates having sex with automatically being married, I do know of Scriptures that teach that one should not be a fornicator.

 

[farouk]

The fatal flaw in the argument that the bible somehow teaches that sex automatically makes two people "married" is that there would then be no fornication, only adultery. Yet, while I've never seen any clear teaching that equates having sex with automatically being married, I do know of Scriptures that teach that one should not be a fornicator.

Well, this is a good point, because the Bible certainly does not equate fornication with marriage.

If people are cleansed and forgiven of whatever acts may have happened before marriage and can move on, then Christians ought to be able to live with this, too.

(There are sometimes complications: for example, a serial Casanova who leaves various dependents in different places, without support, and then says, Oh shucks, never mind, Please Mr Preacher, I want to get married...; well, there are some big, big testimony issues there.)

 

[farouk]

If premaritial sex is a sin (and I believe it is) and one has asked for and received forgiveness for that sin (which all in Christ will be) and God promises that He will forgive our sins and remember them no more (Isa 43:25, Heb 8:12, 10:17), then why would the church, who is to be submissive to God as a wife to her husband, remember the sin's her Husband chooses to forget?

handy:

I think maybe also a lot depends on the type of church that one belongs to. For some churches, the law is stressed even more than the gospel, the church is seen as an extension of Jewish theocracy; often there will be attempts to perpetuate old fashioned cultural no-nos, no tatts, etc. and I guess, instead, in contrast, in my thinking I'm reckoning on gospel based local churches, where the saving work of Christ is stressed, and the New Testament is distinguished from the Old.

As I see it, if a cleansed person can truly move on, and is also fulfilling any responsibilities that s/he may have from the past, then under grace, companies of Christians ought to be able to do so, also.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

This whole thing sounds as well as if it's in the Old Testament: 'tokens of virginity', etc.

Under grace, yes, virginity is important but it's not an essential part of the gospel; gathered companies of believers from Gentile and Jewish backgrounds can't be expected to be exactly as a Jewish theocracy functioned.