Yeah I completely disagree with whomever you are quoting. Saying that premarital sex isn't a sin so easily because it isn't stated directly is absurd.
@GdaxBbb I'm very surprised in this discussion you've gone ahead and posted what amounts to a very serious statement, and I'm a bit concerned about listening or giving audience to someone who has claimed to "research it".
The enemy has researched it too bro, it doesn't make it valid.
I spent a good bit of time looking into it, reading scriptures that have to do with the subject. I may put more time into it, but since you reject Paul as "maybe" just giving his opinion and pose that it "may" not be the Lord's will directly there's a lot of an argument that cannot be made as easily. Like sexual sins being a sin against one's own body.
It's pretty clear when dealing with what Paul said where it's specifically him "I would rather" or "I have no specific command" regarding celibacy and unmarried respectively. Those two I consider opinion because it was clarified.
Or "you've heard it said thou shalt not commit adultery..." From the sermon on the mount in Matthew
5:27
"Ye have heard it said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
How can you get around that? Paul simply expounded from Jesus words. Even if you think Paul occasionally was inserting opinion Jesus himself said it quite clearly.
It didn't say a married woman here, it just says "a woman".
The reason why premarital sex isn't specifically talked about it, and this is what I feel on the subject by the way...is because it's pretty obvious. To the point where that would almost be a given.
When you look at Numbers 25:1 you see the Lord's response for idolatry. That included sexual relations and you can further read how some even took wives at another point. I'm down to go point by point, but this is a lot of effort and if you had simply said I'm almost confident it is a sin although not specifically stated I'd be more inclined to be amicable. Maybe you were just posting whomever's words for the sake of argument but it doesn't really matter the rest of what he said, the first sentences are flawed.
Why do you think Jesus furthered the command of not committing adultery? Do you think it was because people were being legalistic about it? Oh well I only went to first, second, third base...I didn't "really" sin.
Oh yeah I took this girls virginity and we lived together for years and didn't care whether the Lord was for it or against it, but we ended up not getting married and I later found out she died alone and didn't ever marry so how then did I commit adultery? Surely it's not a sin...sure scripture is pretty clear about what the covenanted construct of holy matrimony is but while I basically spit in the face of that I didn't sin...I just was on a slippery slope but held it together. Yeah we exalted our wills above the Lord but so long as neither of us ever marry we won't ever commit adultery and be sinless. Presuming of course that no children were ever created (which is another tangent).
If you are legitimately looking for how premarital sex is sin and not trying to convince people it's just "ill-advised" then perhaps I'll continue to explain each interlocking precept regarding that, but posting something from someone who is promoting that it's not sinful to have sex outside marriage is not alright with me.
By that logic you can have sex with as many people as you want, so long as you keep in mind prior laws...like it not being your aunt, step-sibling, sister, dog, corpse, etc. just make sure they aren't married and you are good to go.
Is there forgiveness and grace in spite of our mistakes? Sure is. Teaching that having sex before marriage is in the same zip code as having a beer is ridiculous though.
Bear in mind why Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. The twisted scripture in order to suit human "righteousness".
You might also look into sins that people committed whose punishment was being cut off from the people. It would have been a very real possibility that if a man took someone's virginity and neither said anything and she later married someone else (presuming she did not get pregnant) then she could be executed. So who's fault would that be? In a way you would also be committing potential murder in the same action. That seems pretty obvious to me. Thus why there are laws about it and extenuating circumstances (note: being in the field with no one around). It's not like a man didn't know this going in. Regardless of whether he "got away with it" or the law favored him...how do you think the Lord sees it. Do you see the Lord blessing too many people for just doing whatever they please?
Again, you pointed out Judah which doesn't mean the Lord was for it. The messiah didn't come through the line of Judah because of Judah but rather because of David who was a part of that line. Judah has very little to do with it.
Recall the entire story of Joseph? He ran from temptation and spent years in prison because of it, while the rest of his brothers (excluding Benjamin) were "getting off easy" it would seem.
It's not my intention to come off as condemnatory. The way is narrow for sure, but if we can't even consider what Jesus said then I am confused on how to proceed.
1
