I am not saying that sex is the number 1 reason for marrying, but it's still one the top reasons for marrying. For example, if you love and care for someone of the opposite sex deeply, but have no sexual interest in that person, would you marry that person? The answer is no. Such a person would make a good friend, but you would not make such a person your wife or husband. So don't underestimate the importance of sex in a marriage.

From my search on the internet, the young marriage option seems popular among the Muslim community. It's interesting that both Christians and Muslims abhor sex outside of marriage, but at the same time, have different primary ways of dealing with the problem.

I believe the article when it says that marriage is not for the mature but for those who will grow into maturity together. In other words, some people need to mature by being in a situation that will help make them mature, as opposed to putting a high age limit on certain things. You also have to take into account that around the age of 35 for women (and 30 for some women), pregnancy at an older age is risky. So you have to take the physical maturity into account too.

In the modern Christian world, abstinence is what is promoted. But in times past and outside North America, they seem more open to the marriage option. I don't see why the churches in North America can't promote young marriages along with abstinence. Do you notice that there are no abstinence programs in the Bible? It is true that the Bible teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but they put a bigger emphasis on marriages than abstinence or celibacy.

There are two Bible ways to deal with sexual temptation. One way is to resist the temptation. The other way is to provide a morally acceptable outlet for sexual needs in the form of marriage; which the Apostle Paul recognized as quoted in the previous scriptures.

I am not saying that a person should marry just for sex. What I am saying is this; for those boyfriends and girlfriends who have been seeing each other for 2 or more years who are struggling to say faithful to God in the area of sexual morality, it might be better if they married earlier than to put off the marriage at some long future date and risk sinning against God.

Just to let you all know, in most parts of Canada and the United States, the age of marriage is 18. Marriage with parent's permission is 16.

I'm not saying that everyone has to marry in their teens. They can always wait until their early 20s, but definitely sooner than the typical 25-30 age bracket.

NOTE: I only want Christians to respond to this thread. I do NOT want non-Christians to respond to it since they do not care if sex takes place outside of marriage

This is the most controversial view that I support because both conservative and liberal minded people do not like it.

Conservative minded people support abstinence. There is nothing wrong with abstinence. However, when you ask these people when youth are deemed ready for marriage, they will usually say around the ages of 25-30. I believe this is too long of a time period for many people to wait. If you tell a bunch of teenagers that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and at the same time, say that they won't be ready for marriage until the ages of 25-30, do you really think they will be encouraged wait? Some will, but a lot of them will not. They will just end up engaging in premarital sex thinking to themselves, "Well I am not going to be ready for marriage until several years in the future, so I might as well have some sex now in the meantime".

Liberal minded people believe in "safe sex". That is, as long as a condom is used, it's okay for youth to engage in sex. They acknowledge that youth have sex drives and that many of them do not have the will power to wait several years into the future when society deems them ready for marriage. The problem with this approach is that it compromises Christian teaching that teaches that sex should only take place in marriage. Christians should not have to compromise their faith in order to accommodate their youth's sexual needs. Also, condoms and other forms of birth control are not fool proof. In other words, it helps to reduce the risk or pregnancy and STDs, but they do not eliminate the risk.

What are the reasons why I promote young marriages among Christian youth and young adults? Because it combines the best of both worlds. Because the sexual activity is taking place within marriage, it doesn't compromise Christian teaching. It also promotes monogamy. Also, if they go through a series of premarital counseling and the wedding itself, these young couples might take their relationship more seriously as husband and wife than if there were just boyfriend and girlfriend. Birth control can be used if they don't want children. If you are Catholic, you can use a certain natural method to avoid having children at the woman's fertile times.

The Bible verses that I use to justify this are these:

1 Cor. 7:1-2 (NKJV) says, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband."

1 Cor. 7:8-9 (NKJV) says, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Here is what an anonymous former youth pastor has to say on the subject that I saw on another message board:

"I used to be a youth pastor in a large church, and I will tell you why abstinence programs do not work: because God (or if you prefer, Nature) made the human body to reproduce beginning in the teenage years. Around 16 is the healthiest time physically to have a baby; that's also when the hormones telling teenagers to go forth and multiply kick in really hard. To tell a teenager to suppress his or her God-given urges and not have sex till marriage and not get married until they're 25 or 30 is not only utterly unrealistic, it violates the very law that God has put in their hearts.

The church that I was in had the good sense to recognize this and actively promoted young marriages. If a young couple appeared to be getting serious about one another, they were invited to explore their relationship with their parents and the pastors. There was a special 8-week premarital class, and the church made it clear that parents were still expected to help support their married kids while they graduated from high school or college, learned a trade or started a business. Most teen couples continue to live with one set of parents or the other until they could be in financial shape to buy a house, with the parents expected to put up the down payment. And of course having parents around is built-in free child care and marriage counseling.

I'm very happy to say that this program works. I saw probably 10 or 12 teen marriages while I was with this church and only one of them has ended up in divorce. It's amazing what happens when you do things God's way."

Now I need to clarify some possible misunderstandings about what I support:

1) I do NOT support quick marriages. I am referring to Christian young couples who have been seeing each other for at least 2 years and who plan to marry anyway. But instead of putting that marriage off in the far distant future, they might marry after high school graduation.

2) I do NOT support marriages just to have sex. The couple have to sincerely love and care for each other in addition to wanting to have sex with each other or the marriage won't last. Sex may not be the number 1 reason for marriage, but according to one pastor, it is the number 3 reason. So while it's not number 1, it's still one of the most important aspects of marriage. Most people do not marry someone if they have no sexual interest in them.

As I said, I only want Christians respond. I am not interested in arguing with people who find nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage.

Here is an article written by a Catholic priest that supports young marriages. Please read it before responding:
Link

This is very good news indeed. Praise God! 

The sabbath travel law allowed for travel of a distance less than a mile. One that is pointed out is in John 9:1-9 Where both Jesus healed the blind man with clay and spittle. In this example though it does not state how far they traveled on that sabbath.

If we look to Paul's travels though we see many times where traveled long distances that would have required traveling on the sabbath in order to arrive in the time it says he did. Acts 16 (the scripture that I mentioned above) is just one of these examples.


AMEN!

With the many changes that man has implemented in the calendars from the original to the one we follow today it is difficult to tell what day of the week is actually the Sabbath. There has been many lengthy studies done on this and as of yet there is no definitive answer.

I don't see the Acts 16 scripture that you say you quoted. Besides, I don't think that Paul would have traveled long distances on the Sabbath. I think he got to those places by traveling on Sunday and the other working days.

As for calendar changes, I've been taught that they did not alter the weekly cycle. I've heard of one change where the calendar days were "fast forwarded" (1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18. . . ), but such a change did not alter the weekly cycle. I don't think that God, who wanted people to keep the Sabbath (or even Sunday if you believe that is the day of Christian worship) would allow man to "loose track" of the day of worship.

I'm new here too and quite frankly, I am disturbed with some of the threads here. Some seem to advocate that the law has been done away with or that the Old Testament is not important. Both are false. While a person who accepts Christ is under grace, we are still required to obey God's law. Also, much of the New Testament are quotations from the Old Testament.

A wise person once said that any religion that does not demand anything of its followers or puts those who have newly embraced it, into more or less what they were into before, is an ineffective religion. Sounds very much like James 2:20 which says, "Faith without works is dead".

Concerning tithing, it is very important for all Christians to tithe. The consequences of not tithing is that the church has little or no funds to do it's function. Ten percent of your income isn't a huge burden.

Jemdude,

No one is saying that the day of the Sabbath has changed.  Matter of fact we are all saying that day of the Sabbath as outlined by the Law is what we would call Saturday.  What we are saying is that we do not hold that day any more holy than any other day.  To the Jews the Sabbath was the "holiest" day of the week. 

And when you have started off referring to things in proper name form "the Sabbath" you are then referring to the Jewish holy day which is Saturday.  But at times you talk as if you are just referring to keeping the sabbath or keeping the day of rest which is the 7th day.  These are the traditions which the Pharisees had fallen into.  The day of rest, or the original sabbath was not for God's purpose but to truly provide man a day of rest.  To set in motion that we are to take some time to unwind.  The legalistic Jews over the years had turned the sabbath into more than just the day of rest and had turned it into a dramatic day of reverence.  And even as Jesus pointed out that they had gone to the point of being overboard with it.  They were ready to stone Jesus and the disciples for picking veggies on the side of the road on the Sabbath.  They were confused that one professing to be from God could and would do healing miracles on the Sabbath.  They had taken 6 days of the week away from God and put them all into the last day of the week. Each day of the week is God's and we should revere Him daily.   The Sabbath is for the Jews.  The sabbath is for all, but it is again the spirit of the sabbath not the law of the sabbath.

Well, one thing we can agree on is that the Pharisees made the Sabbath far more burdensome than God intended. They believed that practicing medicine was forbidden on the Sabbath so they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath when he healed people on that day. They were wrong of course. Even today, the Orthodox Jews have much restrictions on what can be done on the Sabbath. For example, they don't believe in turning their lights on the Sabbath because of a Bible verse saying not to light fires on the Sabbath. It's for this same reason why they don't drive vehicles on the Sabbath since the engine generates sparks. There are even "Sabbath elevators" that stop on every floor because pressing the number is "lighting a fire". All of this is not of God's doing but man's doing and I'm glad that Jesus set the record straight on the subject.

They had taken 6 days of the week away from God and put them all into the last day of the week. Each day of the week is God's and we should revere Him daily.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is true that we are to honor God on every day of the week. However, we are not able to give God full attention on the working days of the week because of the distractions of work. When Sabbath comes (or Sunday in your case), we are able to give full attention to God.

Let me ask you this Jemdude....


Do you believe you are justified by keeping the sabbath? 

I'm not sure if I understand your question. If you are asking me if I believe that I can be saved by merely obeying God's laws then the answer is no. I still have to accept the sacrifice that Jesus made for my sins. But Jesus still wants all of us to obey God's laws, for as you probably know already, grace is not a license to sin. I do believe that keep the Sabbath is one of those laws that should be obeyed. But I don't feel that it's some kind of legalistic practice. Most people find the Sabbath a day to look forward to, especially after a week of hard work.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

No one has called it a "burden". Those are your words. A person that keeps the Sabbath as a commandment must be inclined to keep all of the law. The law has been our schoolmaster. It's purpose was to show us that no man could abide by the law. No matter how hard we try we will not be able to keep all of the law and to break one thing of it means that we have broken it all. This is the reason for the law of grace.

You mentioned that it was a proven thing that the early church worshiped on the Sabbath. Yes, when preaching to the Jews they did indeed do so in the Synagogues on the Sabbath as it was the time in which the Jews gathered.

Did you know that the Apostles also traveled from place to place on the Sabbath (which was considered a sin by the law) and would preach on a different day other than the Sabbath?

Act 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1Co 16:2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Where in the Bible did the Apostles travel from place to place on the Sabbath? I don't think they did; at least not long distances.

I know I'm sounding repetitious, but it just isn't possible to change the day of worship and have everybody quietly go along with it. A good example is the Worldwide Church of God founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. They used to be a Sabbath (Saturday) keeping church. But when they decided to change their worship day to Sunday, do away with the Jewish holidays, and a host of other doctrinal changes, it tore the church apart. It caused much controversy within their denomination. The same thing would have happened if the Apostles changed the worship day from Saturday to Sunday. I guess you will have to be honest and admit that you are not able to explain how such a quite change to a major and long-practiced teaching can take place; and that's fine. Even Christians are not going to agree on everything.

Gathering on the 1st day of the week doesn't prove that they made it their main worship day either. It only proves that they had a particular function on that particular day. I attend the Seventh Day Adventist church and we used to have a Men's Ministry program that met on the 1st day of the week every month. Does that mean that Adventists have changed their main day of worship? Of course not. 1Cor 16:2 has nothing to do with a regular church service. Paul told them to take collections. Since they regarded Sunday as a working day, it must have been something that took a lot of work to do.

The Apostles continued to observe the Sabbath, not just when they were preaching to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well:
--"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44
--"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

There is also talk here about being under grace. It is true that we are under grace, but we still have to obey God's law. For example, if a cop catches you speeding, you have broken the law and deserve to be punished. But if the cop forgives you and doesn't give you the ticket, then you are under grace from him. Does that mean you can continue to break the law? Of course not. It would make you put even more effort not to break that law again.
--Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15.
--"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? Certainly Not!" Romans 6:14-15

I can quote more verses, but I don't think it will do any good. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've studied this subject and I don't think I would be able to quote anything new. What I might have shown new is when I appealed to your common sense when I demonstrated that a change in worship day just couldn't happen under the conditions you claim it happened. You have probably decided to dismiss it and continue to believe that a change in worship day occurred without incident. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then we'll have to continue to agree to disagree.

Agreed.  The Sabbath day is the last day of the week, Saturday.  However the Sabbath is for Jews.

Exodus 31:13 ..."Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations..."
Exodus 31:16 ..."Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath"...

Those are but a couple of many verses that emphasize that the sabbath is a holy day only unto the Jews.  And is part of their Law and not the Law of Grace under Christ.  One cannot deny that Jesus rebuked the Jews concerning working on the Sabbath.  We as Christians are not under the Law but under Grace.  And therefore do not have to follow the strict observance of the Sabbath. 

The Sabbath was given at creation week, long before there were any Jews.

As I said to Pastor Roger, I look forward to the Sabbath. I don't know where you get this idea that it's some kind of bad burden. You can hardly call a day off a burden.

Well Pastor Roger, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't believe that after thousands of years of keeping the Saturday Sabbath, that a change in the day of worship could take place without a specific commandment to do so, and without it being big news. The idea that such a change took place quietly without incident is something that simply cannot be done.

The Messianic Jews believed that circumcision was compulsory for the gentiles. The Apostle Paul had to specifically tell them that was not so.

You act as if the Sabbath is some kind of legalistic thing. Not to me. After 6 days of hard work, I look forward to the Sabbath. To me, it's the best day of the week that I look forward to.

Proving that the early Church kept Saturday is easy. There is NO specific commandment to keep Sunday. If the early church was mostly composed of Jews who kept the Sabbath for thousands of years, then the Church would have to have given a specific commandment to keep Sunday. The lack of such a command would indicate that no change took place.

If such a change did take place, there would have been massive protests. Both the Messianic Jewish followers within the church and the pharisees would have massively protested such a change. The idea that the church can make a change like that without an incident is impossible. As I said, if the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jews changed their day of worship, it would be big news. If the various Catholic and Protestant churches changed their day of worship from Sunday to Saturday or another day, it would be big news as well. It's just plain impossible to make a change like that without a specific commandment, and a lot of people saying something about it.

2nd Timothy, I keep the Sabbath out of obedience to God, that's all. I don't believe that Col 2:16-17 means that the Sabbath has been abolished. But since it also says not to judge a person based on the worship day, then I assume that also means that I shouldn't be judged on my Sabbath Keeping either.

If the early Church really did change the day of worship, then I really would like to know how they were able to change the day from Saturday to Sunday without a specific commandment and without any protest from within the church or from the pharisees. If the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jews decided to change their worship day, there would be big news about it and much protest. The same thing applies if the Roman Catholic Church or other major Sunday keeping denomination changed their worship day.

Well, one of the ways I keep the Sabbath Day holy is not to work on that day. It's true that you can and should honor God on any day, but God set aside one special day for Him and for us. But I still respect the beliefs of people who worship on Sunday.

A lot of people believe that the day was changed from Saturday to Sunday. I don't believe that. One of the reasons is because it's contrary to common sense. If the day was changed, there would have had to be a specific commandment saying so. You couldn't just casually change the day of worship with no one saying a word about it. Don't believe me? Try changing the day of worship at your home church or denomination and see what happens?