First of all, the word translated "fornication" is porneia and is a broad term that can refer to many different sexual acts that are considered to be improper. Thus, for example, Paul uses the plural noun in 1 Cor. 7:2 to encompass all of these "fornications."
Now it's true that pointing to a verse that says "Do not be sexually immoral" doesn't tell us
which sexual acts are immoral and which are moral. In the same way, pointing to a verse that says "do not murder" does not tell us which acts of killing are moral and which are immoral. Obviously not all acts of killing or sex are immoral.
Most of the time this isn't a problem because we all have a common intuitive like notion of which acts of killing are moral and which are immoral.
For instance, none of us really need an argument from Scripture or reason to show us that rape is one of those kinds of sexual acts which is immoral. And none of us really need an argument from Scripture or reason to show us that me killing my uncle Bob simply because he wore a green tie that I didn't like is an instance of murder, or unjust killing.
Unfortunately, there will always be a few people who want to justify their immorality and lack of self-control ,
like you Chris79, and maybe they have had their conscience seared to the truth by their sin.
Here is an argument to the effect that sex is specifically for the marriage union:
God defined marriage in the following way: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). That this is a reference to marriage is demonstrated by Jesus' appeal to it in relation to divorce in Matthew 19:4-6.
The phrase "they shall become one flesh" has reference to sex. This is demonstrated by Paul's reference to the phrase in 1 Cor. 6:16.
Thus, the sexual union is intended by God to be part of the marriage covenant and that it is only part of the marriage covenant is made clear in 1 Corinthians 7:1–2 - "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality (porneias), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
Clearly, Paul's point is that you should have a husband or a wife so that you can fulfill the desire to have sex (if the desire to have sex is a major temptation). Otherwise, you will be tempted to immoral sex, which in context would be sex outside of the marriage union.
Now, Chris79, you present two reasons to try and say that sex outside of marriage is permissible (if you eventually marry the person you have sex with).
First, you appeal to Exodus 22:16 which reads:
“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."
Apparently, you think that the Bible is describing something that is permissible. In other words, the Bible is not simply describing a man seducing a virgin but is giving its stamp of approval to men seducing virgins.
This is mistaken. The word
seduces in the Hebrew "has the basic meaning of deceiving someone who is naive or inexperienced. In this context it means to persuade a virgin to have sexual intercourse by deceiving her and taking advantage of her inexperience" (Handbook on Exodus).
Thus, it is obvious that the context of the man "seducing" the virgin is not positive but negative. The seduction is a bad thing. This is even more obvious if you look at the parallel in Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 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.
This is buttressed by the fact that it occurs in a list of other sexual sins of adultery and rape.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Mosaic law does not attempt to institute an ideal state of affairs (nor does any law code). In other words, not all sins are punishable by law (sometimes for obvious reasons: you can't know a persons thought life). In many places the law simply seeks to minimize or curb abuses as much as possible given the conditions at the time.
We have a clear instance of this in Jesus remarks concerning divorce. Jesus said that divorce is never a good thing. But the law allowed divorce in order to curb or minimize what would otherwise lead to greater sins (perhaps murder of the spouse in order to be free of them, no joke). So the fact that the Bible allows for divorce does not mean that the law is giving it's approval to divorce. Rather, the law is simply limiting or curbing abuses which would otherwise take place (such as arbitrary divorces, murder, or the refusal to marry because of it's binding nature, etc.).
So it is insufficient to say "There is a law which limits x, thus x is moral." Besides the obvious non-sequitur, we know this is false in the case of divorce and we also might say that we know it is false in the case of slavery. The Bible gave laws to limit the abuses of slavery, but we cannot therefore conclude that slavery is itself a good thing or permissible.
Likewise, the Bible gives us a law concerning a man who seduces or deceives an unbetrothed virgin. But it would be fallacious to assume that the Bible therefore gives such seduction a stamp of approval.
Secondly, you (apparently) appeal to the fact that it isn't explicitly mentioned (along with masturbation). This line of reasoning can be dismissed very simply:
"Modern societies generally have opted for exhaustive law codes. That is, every action modern society wishes to regular or prohibit must be specifically mentioned in a separate law...Ancient laws did not work this way. They were paradigmatic, giving models of behaviors and models of prohibitions/punishments relative to those behaviors, but they made no attempt to be exhaustive. Ancient laws gave guiding principles, or samples, rather than complete descriptions of all things regulated" (Douglas Stuart, Exodus, 442).
And as I pointed out to Speeder in another thread, there are many things not mentioned in Scripture that we would still consider to be sinful: pedophilia or the genocide of aliens living on Mars. The idea that something needs to be explicitly prohibited in Scripture is absurd.
Those who seek to justify sin and, thereby, lead others away into sin have reason to fear.
Matthew 5:19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..."
Matthew 18:6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
and we just couldnt have that now could we..
that is the face im making at you right this moment!