Marry in Registry Office
- Thread starter PeterAndroz
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There's nothing in the Bible that says it has to be done in a church by a pastor or priest. There's no clear outline for a wedding ceremony at all. In ancient Judea, it was done between families via contract. Once they were betrothed, they were considered married even though they didn't consummate yet (which happened a year later). That's when the families got together and had a little ceremony and feast. So, it's largely dependent on the culture. The most important part is to say the wedding vows publicly before both God and man.
Last edited:
The Holy Bible has this to say about the value of witnesses:
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Cor. 13:1)
and
And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. (Ecc. 4:12)
The only reason for secrecy is to hide evil:
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)
It depends on which master you have submitted to. If you have brought the corporation/Caesar into your union (e.g. via marriage license), then you will render unto that entity.
At USA Inc., CPS = Child Protective Services. The family abuses perpetuated by that agency are legion.
...an incorporated business/"church" by a Caesarian-credentialed pastor or
Rather, a believer is a member of the priesthood:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called. (2 Pet. 2:9)
Indeed.
Yes.
By scriptural definition, a marriage without God as the centerpiece is no marriage at Law.
There is so much conflict raging (and, BTW, children gone missing), as folks unwittingly continue to serve two masters.
We must avoid making contracts with demonic forces.
A very important information you need to know about a contract is that it does not need to be a piece of paper with terms and conditions written on it. For example, the act of participating in a religious ritual, such as Christmas or Halloween, can bind you to whatever that religious ritual was designed to do.
The demonic forces like to use contracts to trick you to agree to participate in their world of legal fictions (dead entities and artificial persons). By contracting with them, you agree to play their matrix game to enslave mankind; therefore, they can prevent you from leaving their matrix. The good news is that their contracts are based on fraud, so when you know how to void contracts, you can nullify their contracts any time you want.
Last edited:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree. But we don't see the matter of marriage having to be before witnesses in the Bible (as far as I am aware).
Yes, I cannot off-hand think of any other reason than secrecy.
Had the Jews "bought the Roman Empire/Caesar into their union"? Of course not. They didn't say to themselves, "Let us have the Roman Empire ruling our nation." Similarly (though not quite the same, of course) when I got married, I had to have a marriage certificate, not because my wife and I had brought the system of registering births, marriages and deaths into our union, but because by the laws of this country (UK), births, marriages and deaths must be registered.
Thanks for explaining that American acronym. Do your Child Protection Services really take children away from their parents at gunpoint?
I agree that every believer is a priest. Churches in the UK are not "incorporated." I am unsure what a "credentialed pastor" is. Here, depending on the denomination, the local church chooses its own pastor, or, in some denominations, a denominational body does so.
Certainly, there is no "rule" concerning witnesses. But hopefully, you can discern the value of them and why there was celebration (witnesses) to a marriage - into God's family. Witnesses expose the evil that secrecy would bring.
Yes, the master to which you voluntarily submitted requires that his subjects "register" etc. etc.
"Gunpoint" episodes are not uncommon. And CPS has been exposed as complicit in child trafficking.
Even UK charities are regulated by Caesar (the Charities Commission). The camel still has his nose in the tent.
Agree.
Deut 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
Deut 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Ex 22:16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
No. A pastor doesn’t make a marriage valid; God recognizes lawful covenant marriage under civil authority (Romans 13:1–7). If they were legally married before coming to faith, they are already husband and wife. 1 Corinthians 7 treats such marriages as real marriages after conversion, not ongoing fornication. A church ceremony can be a blessing, but it isn’t what makes them married.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Questions of this nature are asked when Law supersedes Grace, when Judgement outraces Mercy, when Justice is interpreted as payback.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree that witnesses are desirable.
I don't view the state as my master. If the UK government suddenly issued a law that nobody should read the Bible, or meet with other Christians to worship and study God's word, I would have to say as the apostles did, "I must obey God rather than man."
In that case I am glad I live in the UK.
It is only larger churches with annual income of over £100,000 which are required to register with the Charity Commission. Even then, the Commission does not have the right to dictate what the church believes, or how it operates.
I later reworded the question :-
..
What about unbelievers who self-marry without any reference to GOD ?
eg :-
Colorado - do it yourself marraige ?
No witnesses required, any location, just the 2 of you
..
God is not a party to any "civil" marriage, as "civil" is an invention of men and does not appear in the Holy Bible. Rather, the authority being referred to in your cited passage would be Godly authority (Lawful) and not the purported authority of the State (legal).
When God is removed as the basis for societal contracts (covenants as opposed to contracts), the tyranny of the State takes his place. And the State is a cruel master. Jesus said his yoke is easy and his burden light. How different it is with the State. God is not a respecter of persons; the State is.
You may not view it that way, but the State does. Because you have contracted with the State (ignorantly or otherwise), you will render to the State - and, if the State deems it necessary, by force.
Rather, a believer "must obey God" from the outset. Compromising with temporal powers whenever they seem to harmonize with God's Law can never lead to redemption. My God is a jealous God and he will not share his glory with another.
The malevolence of the spirit empowering the State is only a matter of degree - not of geography.
There's the deception. Yes, you did 'bring the system...into your union'! You signed on, voluntarily, to the system. And you did it for one or both of these reasons:
1) You were afraid of the perceived consequences of disobedience to the State;
2) You signed one or more contracts with the State, joining the Living man to the dead corporate State, thereby giving the State jurisdiction over you.
In the absence of the understanding of God as the head of the marriage covenant, the State has taken his place and wreaked havoc. The marriage contract/license has no meaning except for the purposes of the godless State...
It is a myth that where a church is a registered place of worship, it does not need to be registered with the Charity Commission. Registration as a place of worship entails registration under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. This registration is of the building (only) and enables solemnization of marriages to take place in that building.
Where a building is registered as a place of worship, the trusts over the building do not need to be registered with the Charity Commission as they fall within an exception. However, the funds of the congregation that meet in the building will be subject to the normal charity registration rules in Charities Act 2011 and must register with the Charity Commission if the 2011 Act applies.
Again, the camel has its nose in the tent.
Last edited:
@doctrox,
I think we need to be careful not to separate “civil” authority from God’s sovereignty in a way Scripture doesn’t. Romans 13:1–7 is explicit that governing authorities as they exist are “established by God,” and that resisting them is resisting what God has appointed. Paul wrote that under a Roman Empire that was anything but godly in character.
That doesn’t mean the State is morally perfect or that it replaces God; it means God is sovereign even over imperfect human systems and uses them to maintain order in a fallen world.
On marriage specifically, Scripture does not restrict recognition of marriage to a religious ceremony performed by the covenant community. Civil registration is simply a public/legal recognition of a covenant between two people. That’s consistent with the biblical principle of order, witness, and accountability.
The danger in denying civil authority altogether is that it effectively rejects what Paul affirms in Romans 13, rather than submitting to it “for the Lord’s sake.”
civil = relating to the community, or to the policy and government of the citizens and subjects of a state. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 311
"...citizens and subjects of a state."
I wish it were true, if only to keep me out of harm's way.
You have not cited the AV but some copyrighted version of it. And therein lies a deception.
It is noteworthy that modern copyrighted “versions” of The Holy Bible have changed the phrase “higher powers” to merely “governing authorities,” thereby obscuring the necessary distinction between Godly authority and ungodly authority, between God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom.
I've posted much about the generally accepted misread of Romans 13. To make a long story short, we can get this right by allowing scripture to interpret scripture.
Turning to Hebrews 13, we get a second witness as to what constitutes Godly government (as described in Romans 13):
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation (v. 7). When's the last time you heard Trump speak the word of God to you and/or evidence his faith in Jesus Christ to you?
and
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (v. 17). When's the last time Trump watched for your soul and gave account to others in the body of Christ for it?
Imagine, believers appearing before unbelievers for judgment. It happens every day in the world's traffic courts.
When scripture speaks of obeying and submitting ourselves to those who have the rule over us, God’s word is not talking about heathen governments, but those "rulers" within Jesus Christ's assembly. Notice carefully this verse says these rulers (i.e. “them that have the rule over you”) "watch for your souls" (Heb. 13:17). Governments of men cannot govern or watch for anyone's souls, for they can only govern outward acts, not the inward being. But true spiritual leaders do watch for our souls.
Those who "have the rule over you" at Hebrews 13:17 is specifically defined a few verses earlier in Hebrews 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation
As we can see, scripture itself defines these "rulers" as those who speak the word of God and have faith. Conversely, secular governments avoid, and often forbid, speaking the word of God within their system through outlawing prayer in their schools and replacing it with such unrighteousness as "the theory of evolution," and by taking down the "Ten Commandments" from their courtrooms. These are not the rulers we are to submit to.
Romans 13:1-4 AV:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
In Romans 13, does verse 1 say, ‘let every soul be subject unto all governments’? Or does it say, "let every soul (including governing authorities such as kings, judges, police, etc.) be subject unto the higher powers"? Who do souls belong to? God says:
Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are mine."
And the second part of verse 1 tells us who “the higher powers” is: "...For there is no power but of God".
The souls of the governmental powers belong to God, and they are not the higher powers, the higher powers are held by Christ himself (Matthew 28:18). Is our Lord not the higher power, then, if all power has been committed unto him (John 17:2)? Christ is the governor among the nations (Psalms 22:28). All power over earthly kings has been given unto him (Romans 14:9). All judgment has been given unto him (John 5:22, 27). Notice the separation of power in Romans 13:1. All power comes from, and belongs to, God (Psalm 62:11) and not the one exercising it. And remember that most men, especially those constituting the "governing authorities," usually deny that power given to Jesus (2 Timothy 3:2, 5):
“For men shall be...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Last edited:
Probably the first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen". The misunderstanding centers on the meaning of "citizen" and an assumed allegiance to Caesar.
Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."
Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same meaning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."
City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"
Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."
And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:
Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.
Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."
"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."
In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."
Notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a citizen of that country, one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have submitted themselves to.
How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.
Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:
"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.
Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we cannot participate in the politics of the nation.
To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:
"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.
This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.
Rather, the danger is in trying to serve two masters - the Real Deal (Lawful) and the Caesarian pretender (legal).
Last edited:
@doctrox, I think we need to separate a few things carefully and stick with the text in context.
Romans 13:1–7 is clearly speaking about governing authorities in the public/civil sphere. Paul explicitly refers to “rulers,” “bearing the sword,” taxation, and maintaining order. Those are functions of state authority, not church leadership. Nothing in the passage suggests he is redirecting the discussion to Hebrews 13. That is a different subject entirely, church oversight within the body of Christ.
Hebrews 13:7,17 is about spiritual leadership in the church who “watch for your souls.” That category simply does not match Romans 13, which includes punishment of wrongdoing (“he does not bear the sword in vain”). Church leaders do not execute civil justice.
On translation differences, “higher powers” and “governing authorities” are not a doctrinal shift; they are standard ways of translating the same Greek concept of delegated authority. The meaning is clarified by the context of Romans 13 itself, not by isolating a phrase.
Also, the argument cannot be reduced to whether rulers are godly or ungodly in character. Paul wrote this under pagan Roman rule. His instruction is about God’s sovereignty over human governments as instruments of order, not endorsement of their morality.
So I don’t think Hebrews 13 can be used to redefine Romans 13. They are addressing different forms of authority in different contexts.
@doctrox, Just to keep focused: Hebrews 13 is about church leadership within the body of Christ, not civil governance. It doesn’t redefine Romans 13 or replace its subject. Romans 13 itself gives the context, taxation, punishment of wrongdoing, and “bearing the sword.” Those are civil functions, not ecclesiastical ones.
If we separate passages from their context and merge categories that Scripture keeps distinct, we end up with conclusions the text itself never makes.
If we separate passages from their context and merge categories that Scripture keeps distinct, we end up with conclusions the text itself never makes.
That's a secular A.I. response that predictably fails to offer the complete picture and is thus a lie.
And which "rulers" would that be?
As I explained thoroughly with scripture, Romans 13 is all about Godly government - not the pretender the majority serve today.
No one said he was "redirecting" anything. We are simply letting scripture interpret scripture. It's a second witness to the operation of Godly government.
Neither passages (Romans or Hebrews) are about "civil governance." Neither of those words are even present in those passages.
They are one in the same. Believing that "ecclesiastical" is separate from "civil" is the lie - no different than believing the convenient lie known as "the separation of church and state." IOW, "civil" (and "State") is Caesar's construct; it is not of God.
It's not about "matching" something. And who is the spiritual leadership in the church? It's YOU and ME: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called.
"Wrongdoing" is to be punished by the Godly authority; that would be "wrongdoing" as defined by the Holy Bible and not by the godless State's corporate rules. The problem is, the majority have accepted, have submitted to, the ungodly rule of the godless State and are in a terrible hurt locker as we speak.
And amen @"Church leaders do not execute civil justice"! God's people are not to be found countenancing the wicked thing.
More A.I., yet I will respond. I've already responded to the attempt to insinuate Paul had allegiance to Caesar. Those who are not for him, are against him. I've replied with scripture and documentation (something that A.I dare not attempt) to your claim that Paul countenanced Caesar. Beware, sister, as "human governments" is not what is being described in Romans 13. Rather, Romans 13 is a most beautiful description of what constitutes Godly authority.
Last edited:
@doctrox. We need to stay with what the text actually describes rather than redefine the categories from outside it. Also, just to be clear, dismissing the argument as “AI” doesn’t address the substance of what is being said. (But thank you; I take that as a compliment). The points stand or fall based on Scripture, not on assumptions about how they were written.
Romans 13 explicitly includes functions like “bearing the sword,” punishment of wrongdoing, and taxation. Those are civil governing functions by any normal reading of the passage. The text itself is describing outward governance over society, not only internal church leadership.
Hebrews 13, on the other hand, is clearly speaking about leaders who “watch for your souls” and “speak the word of God.” That is a different sphere of authority. Paul does not merge those categories, and neither passage suggests they are identical.
Saying “they are the same thing” removes the distinctions the text itself is making. Scripture can interpret scripture, but it cannot be used to erase clear contextual differences between passages.
Finally, whether a government is righteous or corrupt is a separate question from what authority God permits it to have in a fallen world. Romans 13 is addressing that reality directly.
Do not assume; no one has "dismissed" anything. And A.I. does not - cannot - address the "substance," which is why we're stuck playing around right now with word games that do not honor the King.
It was not a compliment. Yet you will take it as you see fit.
I can now see that you're not reading, rather not responding to, what I posted previously, but instead are relying on A.I. IOW, you are repeating yourself.
As I said previously, I didn't "merge" them. Your "different sphere of authority" is repugnant to a Holy God, as there is no such thing to be delineated in his kingdom. There can be only one Lawful Authority; the rest are pretenders, as Romans 13 so eloquently points out.
That "text" would be your A.I. or your copyrighted bible citation - not the word of God.
That's a faux pas; your reply skirts the issue. Rather, no doubt the hackneyed phrase "God is in control" would pop up to spiritualize and blunt the truth. Of course it's all under God's control. Yet he won't allow one to escape the consequences of the choices he has made in disobedience to him, ala the contracts he has entered into with Caesar, striking hands with heathen...
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
It's your choice.
@doctrox, I think we’re now talking past each other rather than engaging the main points of this conversation.
I am not using AI as you keep asserting, or should I say, sidetracking from the main discussion; however, back to Romans 13: the mention of “the sword,” punishment of wrongdoing, taxation, and maintaining order. Those are functions of governing authority in society, not descriptions of church oversight in Hebrews 13.
Hebrews 13 is indeed about spiritual leadership within the body of Christ, and I agree that God is the ultimate authority over all things. The question here is not whether God is sovereign, but how Scripture distinguishes different forms of delegated authority in practice. Romans 13 describes one sphere; Hebrews 13 describes another.
Saying there is “no distinction” between these passages doesn’t remove the distinctions the texts themselves are making; it replaces them with a framework that the passages do not explicitly state.
At this point I don’t think repeating the same points will be productive.
I am not using AI as you keep asserting, or should I say, sidetracking from the main discussion; however, back to Romans 13: the mention of “the sword,” punishment of wrongdoing, taxation, and maintaining order. Those are functions of governing authority in society, not descriptions of church oversight in Hebrews 13.
Hebrews 13 is indeed about spiritual leadership within the body of Christ, and I agree that God is the ultimate authority over all things. The question here is not whether God is sovereign, but how Scripture distinguishes different forms of delegated authority in practice. Romans 13 describes one sphere; Hebrews 13 describes another.
Saying there is “no distinction” between these passages doesn’t remove the distinctions the texts themselves are making; it replaces them with a framework that the passages do not explicitly state.
At this point I don’t think repeating the same points will be productive.
Last edited:
Similar threads
