Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Proclamation of Bans

Expand Messages
  • Fred blahous
    Thanks to everyone who replied to my message. Y all were right about weddings not being an act of worship, and hence not subject to the same restrictions as
    Message 1 of 3 , May 11 7:49 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to everyone who replied to my message. Y'all were right about
      weddings not being an act of worship, and hence not subject to the
      same restrictions as worship.

      1. As regards origins of football and soccer, it was my
      understanding that they originated in the fifteen hundreds to occupy
      ex-soldiers who would otherwise have turned to banditry, well after
      the pagan era ended. I didn't know of any association with old
      druidical rituals. As an Aussie, I would argue that Rugby League is
      real football, and soccer is that whimpy European game, but that is
      not a scriptural principle. Tossing rice goes back to the Roman Luna
      gods and has long been associated with their worship.

      2. I would agree that the civil courts should not be involved with
      marriage, at least so long as it is unlawfully constituted.

      3. On the ethnic issues, I wasn't sure whether to side with
      Rushdooney or Lee. It seems that there are numerous examples of
      intermarriage between people of different tribes, but not of
      different skin. I guess the best approach would be to leave it in
      the hands of parents and their children. If neither parent objects,
      the marriage can go ahead, and the church should honour it, if one
      or both parents object, then the church should not marry them. It
      would appear to me that racial issues pertaining to marriage would
      be generally indifferent. I mainly asked about this stuff because
      there is a bloke called Harry Seabrook at Little Geneva who accuses
      all intermarried couples of "adultery" and he has yet to answer any
      questions on those individuals who are already mixed black and
      white, or those of us who are interethnically mixed German/East
      European, Scots-Irish, etc. Nor has he attempted to refute Moses'
      marriage to the Cushite.

      Thanks again for your replies.


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
      <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
      > <fritzbau@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > I have noticed that the Proclamation makes no provision for many
      > > things that are part and parcel of weddings today. Engagement
      > rings,
      > > wedding rings, honeymoons, and also the state-issued marriage
      > > license. Since a wedding is an act of public worship, and all
      > > worship comes under the RPW, would the lack of scriptural
      support
      > > for these practises and the fact that none are mentioned in the
      POB
      > > make some or all of them forbidden? Is there an official
      > > Presbyterian position on this?
      >
      > Marriage is not an act of public worship, although it may contain
      > some elements of public worship. A wedding is a public
      celebration
      > of the marriage vows, which are (the vows) an act of worship for
      > Christians. The celebration is well, a celebration. It's neither
      > necessary nor prescribed worship. Hence the Directory for Public
      > Worship recommends that weddings not be held on the Lord's day.
      >
      > > Also, as regards the marriage license, since it would bring a
      > couple
      > > under the jurisdiction of the Family Court in the event of
      breakup,
      > > and this Court is closed, rather than public, would this violate
      > the
      > > Confession's requirement that all such proceedings be public? If
      > so,
      > > should church judicatories deal with such things and make them
      open
      > > to the public? Just curious.
      >
      > I would think a Christian who finds it necessary to divorce for
      > biblical reasons should take it to the church courts before the
      civil
      > courts.
      >
      > > As for throwing rice, since this is done in immitation of a
      pagan
      > > Roman ritual, should this practise be considered an act of pagan
      > > worship forbidden in the word?
      >
      > Since soccer is played in imatation of pagan ritual games that
      were
      > played with the heads of enemies...
      >
      > > Finally, does the Ezra passage on the Israelites putting away
      their
      > > pagan wives restrict interracial marriage? If so, would marriage
      be
      > > restricted along the broad lines (Japethite, Hamitic, & Semitic)
      or
      > > along narrower lines (Tueton, Gaelic, Slav, within the
      Japethitic
      > > tribe)? Could a Germanic person marry a Slav or Magyar, or
      Roman?
      >
      > Absolutely, according to our Westminster Confession, "Israelites"
      > should only marry "Israelites", and then only those who have not
      > corrupted their religion with Gentile-imitating idolatry or carnal
      > living.
      >
      > Blessings in Christ,
      >
      > Riley
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.