GB, that may be true colloquially, but not in theology. In theology, sacraments are quite narrowly defined.

Again, not all sacred institutions are sacraments--in fact, an institution cannot be sacramental because a sacrament is an act.

TBG

Don't fall down GB, but I have to agree with you on this point on marriage.
God instituted it in the garden with Adam, and Eve. Jesus also referred to the first marriage in Matthew 19:6.

By the way TBG, Jesus pre-dates marriage by simply being present at creation.

Wagga, I think I mentioned before about those who believe in evolution, cosmic, or biological. While I would not question the faith of these people, I would say that some time their witness will be effected.
If they are willing to a say that one part of scripture is merely spiritually filled stories with no basis in fact, then what next? Since Jesus referred to Adam, Cain, and Noah as actual persons, and they were not, was He lying?

Did God institute marriage as a unique function of the church, or is it common grace? Marriage is open to both those inside and outside the church, therefore it cannot be a sacrament.

And when I say instituted by Christ, naturally I mean during His earthly ministry.

TBG

I was originally willing to concede you the "technical" theological point TBG, but the more I think about it and delve a little further I don't think I can.

Even within the narrowly defined context of the word Sacrament, marriage still falls under it's definition (particularly within context of the Abrahamic Religions). Marriage was an Act before it was Institutionalized. Indeed, one could make the argument that marriage was the First Sacrament, present when God created Adam and Eve--before any Institutions were constructed. It's called "Holy" Matrimony for a reason.

But even many non-Abrahamic religions recognize Marriage as the Primal Sacrament. A Sacred Union (and Act) that Glorifies and Exemplifies the Life Giving and Loving Act of Creation. This seems to be a principle that transcends many religious boundaries.

GB

If they are willing to a say that one part of scripture is merely spiritually filled stories with no basis in fact, then what next? Since Jesus referred to Adam, Cain, and Noah as actual persons, and they were not, was He lying?

Of course not! These people were actual leaders to be sure. There had to be a first proper modern man, whichever way you cut it. Down in Canberra the boffins have a project to prove that all men - and I mean men - are descended from that first proper modern man, appropriately called Y-chromosome Adam, by tracing descent through the Y gene. And I've already said there are a few core truths to the story of the fall from the Garden of Eden, which also, even within that Biblical story, marks the point at which agriculture, husbandry and urbanization took hold. Nimrod, the mighty hunter, wasn't just a person, it was the name of an ancient city in Iraq where the dreaded Assyrians lived.

Adam & Eve's partaking of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, and their subsequent expulsion from Eden does indicate a somewhat rude awakening from a previous Dreamtime, not unlike the Australian Aborigines' Dreamtime, which ended on 26 January, 1788, the day the white man arrived, bringing urbanisation, agriculture and much else. You could say the white man's breaking Koori law disrupted their harmony with the land by which the Australian Aborigines had survived for millennia, and so they, too, were cast out of their Garden of Eden.

Think about it.

Great points as always Wagga .

TBG, going back to your original argument I can demonstrate that sacraments can be acts not exclusive to Christianity.

TBG:
There are only two sacraments in Scripture: the Lord's Supper and Baptism. Sacraments are activities exclusive to the life and work of the visible church.

Baptism is a practice common to many religions. It is a Purification or Initiation Act (i.e. Ritual) often (though not always) involving the use of water. Is Baptism any less Sacramental in Christianity even though the Act is found in many Pagan Religions and Judaism predating Christ (in His Earthly form)?

Likewise the elements of The Eucharist predate Christ's Earthly Incarnation. Bread and Wine both existed long before Christ, as does their Sacramental usage in Religious Rituals. Again, how does this differ from the Act of Marriage?

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

Oh dear, look at what I've gone and started now.

I will concede your criticism of my definition of Sacrament, TBG, because, as I stated, you know more about church history than I do. I still stand by my point, however, that marriage being turned from a sacred, religious, whatever term you might believe to be appropriate, is a cheapening of it that leaves it open to attack. The Constitution contains a purely legalistic interpretation of marriage, that reduces it to a contract.

Also, the concept of marriage being open to all, does not negate the fact that it is a religious institution. Much of the early pre-Marshall Court era Supreme Court jurisprudence was based on the religious ideas of Justice James Wilson. Wilson was influenced by the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment, and applied them to his cases. This included a specifically Christian version of Natural Law theory. The fact that his beliefs were steeped in Scripture did not mean that they could not apply to non-Christians, anymore than vice-versa.

The fact is that most of the ideas that were woven into America's Founding were based in some conception of Scripture. Now, one can argue that the basis is an improper interpretation of Scripture, but the fact that it is mostly based upon it is true. The fact that these principles apply to all does not negate the religious foundations of them, anymore than with Marriage.

Great debate.

Good points TBG and GB. I do not know as much of these issues in church and religious history as you two do, so I will watch you two debate it all and observe.

Thanks GB, for helping explain me. I did mean it as an important institution. I do not know the terminology as well as you and TBG do, I'm afraid. My post count is more "holy" now, GB.

I bid you all adieu.

Just a mod reminder, here on New Year's Eve, when I'm visiting extended family members and cannot say a whole lot more beyond a quick note anyway: careful with the politics, as always! Yet I don't think that line has been at all crossed yet, discussion of American history, the Constitution, etc., could go there. And not like I'm saying that's bad, of course -- it's just verboten on NarniaWeb, per the forum rules, etc.

Beard, you're not likely to get TBG, myself, or any other informed Christian to agree that a non-Christian religion or person could have or practice a "sacrament" by the real definition. Whatever does not proceed from faith in the true God/Savior would be a sin, not glorifying to God, so according to this worldview, it simply cannot be a "sacrament."

Happy New Year to all! This is very likely my last NarniaWeb post of 2009.

Greetings and Salutations Doc . Never fear, I am tap-dancing around the huge political debate around marriage . However, I am confounded that in arguing (as the opposite of) the "Devil's Advocate" position (would that be Holy Advocate in this case? ) I am actually arguing in fact for the Sanctity of Marriage .

Indeed Good Doctor, if you examine my arguments carefully you will see that I am not arguing that other folk have Sacraments (though I certainly disagree with your point on that score ). Nay, I am merely pointing out the holes in TBG's definition of Sacrament .

If Marriage within the Church is not a Sacrament because it existed before--or outside of--Christ's Earthly Ministry, then neither are Baptism or The Eucharist. However, that is not the case; Marriage is as Sacramental within Christianity as is Baptism and The Eucharist. Indeed, my argument is based on a number of points thus far:

1) The contention that such traditions are "Baptized" in Christ and thus become Sacramental within the context of Christianity.

2) That, as resting on the foundation of Judaism's Holy Book of Genesis, Marriage was a Sanctified (Sacramental, Sacred) Act from the very beginning.

3) That the definition of Sacrament[al] is synonymous with Sacred not merely in common vernacular, but also in Theology. Sacrament and Sacred can apply not only to an Act or Rite (Ritual), but also to the objects used in the Rites.

Sacrament and Sacred are derived from the same etymological Latin root word Sacer. Sacred is from the Middle English variant and Sacrament the Old French (Frankish Latin Vulgate--Sacramentum). And both inherently mean "that which is consecrated" (indeed "consecrate" is another variant based on Sacer).

Happy New Year

Gandalf's Beard

EDIT:
The Marriage of baptized Christians is one of the seven Catholic Sacraments.

Baptism
Eucharist
Reconciliation
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Anointing of the Sick

http://www.americancatholic.org/fEATURES/sACRAMENTS/default.asp

In Eastern Orthodoxy, marriage is treated as a Sacred Mystery (Sacrament), and as an ordination. It serves to unite a woman and a man in eternal union before God. And they also have seven Sacraments:

1) The first is baptism which is the Christian rite of initiation in the Church.
2) Chrismation is the second sacrament which bestows upon us the Holy Spirit.
3) Holy Communion is the sacrament of receiving the resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ.
4) Although all Orthodox Christians are to confess their sins daily to God privately, all are encouraged to participate in the sacrament of Confession with a priest.
5) Marriage is a sacrament of the Church for it is Christ himself through the priest or bishop that joins the couple together.
6) Ordination to the sacred priesthood is also a sacrament,
7) as is Holy Oil (Unction) which the faithful are anointed with for the healing of soul and body and for the forgiveness of sins.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/Orthodox_Church/The_Sacraments.shtml

It is certainly true that Protestant Clergy only recognize Baptism and Communion (the Eucharist) as Sacraments. The other 5 are considered "ordinations". Though, particularly in the USA, I think most Protestant laity consider Marriage a Sacrament (judging by all the hoopla surrounding the...ahem...Forbidden Topic ).

Anglicans/Episcopalians however seem to view Baptism and Communion as Primary Sacraments necessary for Salvation. The other 5 Sacraments (including Marriage) are not considered necessary for Salvation, but they are still considered Sacraments. Though opinions seem to vary widely as to their importance.

Anyway, this has been one of my more memorable New Years Eves/Days in years . I hope everyone else is having a great one .

Wow, that's a lot info, GB. Great job. I would seriously love to see and hear more from you, TBG, Ransom, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to this topic more about the role of marriage in the sacred and secular, among other topics. Any chance at increasing my understanding is always appreciated.

Don't worry, Ransom. I too, am going to carefully "dance around" any issues.

Yes, GB, you are into the position of making said case about marriage. "Holy Advocate", I like that.

God bless all. I bid you all adieu.

No worries good Doctore, I will cinfine my political disscussion for work.

Wagga, You have missed my point. Or perhaps proven it in a way.

By denying the validity of the literal scripture you have introduced another interpretation altogether. As I stated before the sin of Adam, and Eve was not urbanization, and agriculture, but their disobedience.

Thank you MC .

Let me just say for now that I think Marriage within the Church can rightfully be considered a Sacrament (and SHOULD be, in my opinion). A Civil Marriage would not necessarily fulfill the same criteria.

Puddleglum, after re-reading Wagga's post, I think it would be fair to say that it doesn't necessarily contradict your point regarding Adam and Eve's Sin of Disobeying God by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, even if taken literally.

Agriculture and Urbanization are clearly not present in The Garden. It is the Expulsion from The Garden for that Sin, and the Knowledge of Agriculture and Technology subsequent to the eating from the Tree of Knowledge which Wagga is relating to the End of the Aboriginal Dreamtime.

The End of the Aboriginal Dreamtime can thus be seen as a fairly recent example of what The Fall might have been like. Humans no longer existing in Harmony with Nature as God originally intended, but instead having to resort to their own Technical Knowledge to Control and Dominate Nature in order to survive "in the Wilderness" through Agriculture and the building of Permanent Settlements.

I think this fits the Literal view of Genesis as well as a Metaphorical view .

GB

GB, your reading of Genesis is selective. True, the Garden of Eden was where God put man--yet God commanded man to take dominion over it. The Biblical story begins in a garden, but it ends in a city.

Again, there are no biblical prescriptions for a marriage ceremony, nor for ordination, nor for any of the five non-sacraments that you mention. As a Reformed Protestant, I maintain that there are but two sacraments--the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion and Baptism.

Part of the reason why I don't consider marriage a sacrament is that it is open to non-members of the Covenant. The sacraments are to be exclusive to members of the church visible and to all members (hence why ordination is not a sacrament).

Another thing to consider is that just because it is not a sacrament does not mean that it is not sacred. You see, for the Christian, no part of life is really "secular." All of life is to be lived in praise of God and for His glory. As Abraham Kuyper said, "There is no square inch of creation of which Christ has not said, 'this is mine.'" As Christians, we have been saved from sin and unto a life lived before the face of God.

TBG

Happy New Year to all.

A fun little marriage question for all who believe that marriage is a sacrament of the church and for church members, but of course anyone can address the question. That's what makes it fun!

Do you believe that non-Christians who marry are still considered to be living in sin, on the grounds that only a church marriage by church members counts? Are your Hindi neighbors married or not? What about Jewish followers of the Mosaic covenant before Christ was born? Were they living in sin (because they didn't get married in a church), absolutely married, or sort-of married (that is, as with all other sins, any Jewish righteous who were waiting for Messiah would have those sins forgiven after Christ died to save them)? And are your Jewish neighbors married now, now that Christ has been here? Or does God honor all honorable* marriages to His glory?

(Where "honorable" means Aslan-talking-to-Emeth: "Therefore if any man swears an oath and keeps the oath for the oath's sake, it is unto Me that he keeps it and it is I who reward him. But if any does a cruelty in My name, though he swears by My name, it is the evil one whom he serves and so is his deed accepted.")

While NarniaWeb members might still give assorted answers, they would not be nearly as assorted as the answers given on most other Internet forums.

The problem Jesus had with the Pharisees was their very literal interpretation of what is meant by "manner of work". Quite recently, some Orthodox Jews in Sydney wanted the traffic lights changed in that part of Sydney so they could go to their Synagogue on the Sabbath without actually having to press a button. That, you see, is the sort of 'manner of work' which might lead them to desecrate the Sabbath. But I would be surprised if the local authorities even in Israel would have obliged them.

What Jesus said in Mark 2: 27, was 'The Sabbath was made for Man not Man for the Sabbath'. That is to say, it isn't a rule to make people's lives unbearable, but a day of rest for Man's own good. If there is no food, Common Sense says to organise something to eat, Sabbath or no Sabbath. And if someone needs medical attention on the Sabbath, then they should get it, according to Jesus, and also Common Sense.

I agree with what you've said here. But I think you missed my point. The Pharisaism of Jesus’ day was “a letter-strictness which overlaid the law with traditional interpretations held to have been communicated by the Lord to Moses as oral explanations of equal authority with the law itself” [Scofield on Matt 3]. The Pharisees had hundreds of man-made rules [Sabbath, etc] NOT found in Mosaic law. They called it “the tradition of the elders ... the ‘oral law,’ which was alleged to have been handed down from Moses. It is actually a traditional interpretation of the written law” [Scofield on Mark 7]. Jesus “found the observance of the [Sabbath] encrusted with rabbinical evasions and restrictions ... wholly unknown to the law, so that He was Himself held to be a Sabbath-breaker by the religious authorities of the time” [Scofield on Matt 12]. Jesus didn’t break the law. If He had, it would have been sin and His sacrifice would have availed nothing. Instead, Christ upheld both the letter and spirit of the law. The Pharisees knew only the letter and they added to it! They believed both written law [Torah] and oral law [Talmud] were equally sacred = wrong! Scofield, referring to Deut 23:24-25, says gleaning grain on the Sabbath was unlawful, but I disagree. Just like Jesus saving or healing on the Sabbath wasn’t breaking the law, so also His disciples eating grain [not gathering it, which would have been work] were also not breaking the law. Getting lunch isn’t work. Rescuing an ox from a physical pit, or a person from a spiritual one, isn’t work either. It’s all about practicality, common sense as you say. But this doesn’t mean you ignore the letter. What did Jesus tell His disciples about the Pharisees? Do as they say but not as they do, “for they say and do not” [Matt 23].

Okay, on the marriage question. I clearly don't know as much as TBG and GB on this, i.e. whether or not it's a sacrament, per se. Of course my church recognizes only baptism and the Lord's Supper, and it's not Reformed Protestant. But we still take marriage seriously. Why? It represents Christ and the church [Ephesians 5], whether the spouses are Christians or not. Of course, on this earth marriage finds its highest ideal and fulfillment when husband and wife are Christians.

Do you believe that non-Christians who marry are still considered to be living in sin, on the grounds that only a church marriage by church members counts?

Do I think non-Christians who marry are living in sin? NO. Do they have to undergo another ceremony if/when they convert to Christianity? Certainly not today! But I've read about 19th-century missionaries who made Hindu converts, already married, undergo a Christian ceremony. I didn't see the point.

Happy belated new year, everyone! God bless us all in 2010!