Question about sex before marriage

[LuxPerpetua]

I was raised (Southern Baptist) and we were always taught that sex before marriage was sinful. Is there an official Lutheran stance on the subject?

[JVAC]

Sex is to remain between a man and a woman who are joined in marriage.

This teaching I think is standard christian teaching throughout the Tradition of the Church (capital T for early church through 1054 AD, as well as Lutheran tradition; and capital C because it is widely held in the Church catholic.)

However, it depends on the deffinition of Sodomy that is used, however, I can't remember when the first Sodomy deffinition was made. I remember watching a special on the History Channel, it was quite informative.

-James

[Caelum]

This was taken from LCMS.org, hope it helps(also touches on something else):

Q. If an engaged couple has sex before marriage, is the child conceived still considered a blessing? Is the sexual act, though the couple love each other and are promised to each other, still a sin? Is the child conceived by an act of sinful nature, lust?

A. In its report on "Human Sexuality," the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) says:

Sexual intercourse engaged in outside of the marriage relationship is forbidden by the Scriptures and must be condemned by the church (Gen. 2:24; 1 Thess. 4:2-5; cf. Gal. 5:19: Eph 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Cor. 6:16-20). . . . Even when the partners feel themselves united by a deep bond of love and intend to be married at some point in the future ("engagement"), the same judgment must be made.

The Bible also clearly teaches, of course, that there is full and free forgiveness for all who repent of their sins and put their trust in God's Son, Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:1; 1 John 1:8-9).

While Scripture teaches, secondly, that all children born into this world (regardless of the circumstances of their conception) are by nature sinful and unclean (Psalm 51:5), God has provided a way (through Holy Baptism) for children to be cleansed from sin and forgiven. God also makes it clear in His Word that all children are precious and highly valued in His sight and are to be regarded as a blessing (Psalm 127; Matt. 19:14). Thus, the CTCR says in its report on "Human Sexuality":

. . . . In the Christian tradition the child has been regarded as a blessing from God (Ps. 127:3-5; 128:3). . . Christian parents have reason to look upon the birth of a child from their union as an occasion to have this child brought into the divine family and to nourish it as it grows to spiritual maturity. They have God's promise that He desires to have their child become an heir of eternal life and a member of His household through Holy Baptism. Theirs is the high privilege of joining in the common work of raising a child up in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, whose forgiveness enables us to live together in unselfish love toward each other.

[LuxPerpetua]

Do both WELS and ELCA believe the same as LCMS in regard to this issue?

[Protoevangel]

To summarize the ELCA’s current stance on sexuality: (http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/sexuality/)



Some Misuses of Sexuality

Sin violates what God intends for sexuality. It harms and demeans persons and relationships. This church opposes ...




Adultery (one abandons the sacred commitment made to a spouse and becomes sexually intimate with another person).
Abuse (Rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity, when a person of greater age or status manipulates one who is younger or more vulnerable, Sexual harassment).
Promiscuity (Having casual sexual relations).
Prostitution.
Practices that spread sexually-transmitted diseases.
Pornography.
Sexuality in media and advertising.


I may have missed it, but to the best of my knowledge, the ELCA “Sexuality: Some Common Convictions” states nothing specifically about premarital sex (as far as a so-called committed couple), except where it falls under one of the headings above.

However, a pastor cannot be in a sexual relationship while unmarried.

[Rechtgläubig]

Do both WELS and ELCA believe the same as LCMS in regard to this issue?
Hi Lux :wave:

The WELS answer is going to look like what Caelum posted... so yes. :D

[JVAC]

states nothing specifically about premarital sex
Why am I not surprised? Just another point dodging stance. At times the ELCA has it right on, and at other times it is way off, but thus so with all denoms I guess.

-James

[ChiRho]

Why am I not surprised? Just another point dodging stance. At times the ELCA has it right on, and at other times it is way off, but thus so with all denoms I guess.

-James

Sure about that? :confused: :P

[JVAC]

Especially So with the LCMS ;) .

In case you haven't discovered yet, I am vehemently opposed to closed communion, if it weren't for that, I might be LCMS now. (there is also the issue of the episcopate, I don't think LCMS has bishops).

-James

[Protoevangel]

Especially So with the LCMS ;) .

In case you haven't discovered yet, I am vehemently opposed to closed communion, if it weren't for that, I might be LCMS now. (there is also the issue of the episcopate, I don't think LCMS has bishops).

-JamesBut dosen't the episcopacy stand in direct contradiction to the BOC?

[JVAC]

Not if the Bishops are among equals.

-James

[Lotar]

But dosen't the episcopacy stand in direct contradiction to the BOC?
So does open communion, but when did that stop ELCA. ;) :P

[Protoevangel]

Not if the Bishops are among equals.

-JamesProblem is, they are not among equals.

The episcopacy is adiaphoron, yet the manner by which the ELCA has adopted the historic succession from the ECUSA makes apostolic succession a necessity. The mandatory historic episcopate stands as a direct affront to the Gospel and to the BOC. Adiaphora cannot be made necessary for the unity of the church.

True, new pastors have the right to request a non-episcopal ordination, but the synodical bishop ALONE decides if a new pastor must conform to the Episcopal ordination practice. This is not "among equals."

[JVAC]

Well the Bishops are given powers of their office in the AC XXVIII by divine right as Episkopos. There are certain powers spelled out in scripture and certain power confirmed in the AC. The Bishops are the heads of their synods and rightly so. St. Peter, St. Polycarp, St. Chrisostom, etc. were all Bishops, Episkopos. They must keep the doctrine of thier synod pure and their ministers teaching and celebrating the Sacraments right.

-James

[Lotar]

Scripture uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably, and so does early church writings, First Clement for example. Even 3 centuries later, it was Jerome who said, "What does a bishop do that a presbyter does not, other than ordaination?" IIRC, Eusebius recounted that the church in Alexandria first existed without bishops.

The evolution of the episcopal order is clearly seen. First, congregations would elect their bishop, presbyter, etc. Later, a bishop had to be present when a bishop was elected. Still later, it was required that three be present to ordain, and no presbyter could be ordained without a bishop. And so on.

This sort of church governance has always led to abuses. Rome, and the Episcopal church, for example. Bishops, or Presidents, have human power and juristiction over the church, but they are not a source of legitimacy, truth, etc. The Gospel as inturpreted by the Church is the authority, legitimacy, and truth, from the layman to the bishop, and everyone in between. When a bishop, whether he calls himself Lutheran or not, speaks against the Word as inturpreted by the Confessions, he is heretical and invalidates his ordaination, and therefore has no authority at all.

[Flipper]

Especially So with the LCMS ;) .

In case you haven't discovered yet, I am vehemently opposed to closed communion, if it weren't for that, I might be LCMS now. (there is also the issue of the episcopate, I don't think LCMS has bishops).

-James
You are welcome to take communion at my church anytime :D

[Lotar]

BTW, when reading the Lutheran Confessions, it is a lot easier to understand what they meant when you read the other works of the authors, rather than just trying to understand the Latin ;) :P I recommend Melanchthon's Loci Communes and Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent.

[Protoevangel]

Well the Bishops are given powers of their office in the AC XXVIII by divine right as Episkopos. There are certain powers spelled out in scripture and certain power confirmed in the AC. The Bishops are the heads of their synods and rightly so. St. Peter, St. Polycarp, St. Chrisostom, etc. were all Bishops, Episkopos. I think Lotar hit the nail on the head here. It is not the office of bishop itself that is the problem, it is “creeping featuritis” (i.e. the tendency for a thing to become more complicated). This has been the practice and problem with the historical episcopacy. Making necessary, that which is adiaphoron is still the issue, as covered in AC VII: “Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike”.



They must keep the doctrine of thier synod pure and their ministers teaching and celebrating the Sacraments right. Kinda like carefully avoiding to call premarital sex sinful or loading a study on human sexuality?



Oh, before someone calls this a debate or argument, when it is actually just a friendly discussion amongst friends: :hug: :hug: :hug: I love ya bro!