Replies

I also note that in 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul states that a requirement for elders, deacons and overseers is that they be the husband of one wife.

Thank you for your congenial responses. I enjoy the discussion very much.

I am very curious about your use of Eusebius though... I thought the words of Church Fathers- unscriptural, uninspired - were off limits? For if you validate one Church Father - would that validate another? Or would it be incumbent upon you then to accept the writings of say, The Didache as an early Church (Mass) contextual writing?
I am serious in asking these questions...

Now for a flip side... we do in fact have to look at Eusebius strangely... While he in one place confirms that "Peter was the foundation Christ built this Church on"- he claims elsewhere that St. Paul was in fact married. No doubt Peter's Mother-in-law confirms a wife for Peter- if we are to believe what Eusebius wrote about their Martrydom... Then don't we have to accept that St. Paul was married and possibly a family man? Maybe that is something you would choose to embrace - I am not comfortable with that- as St. Paul clearly wrote enough that his Matrimony should have been more prominent in those letters- more so one would think- than a lack of mention of Peter's wife- a major Apostle- in the Gospels. (Although we do know that St. Paul was miffed at not having female participation in his travels as others did)

But back to Celibacy as being the issue.....
If we are fully embracing Eusebius then... we must also consider....

In Demonstratio Evangelica, however, Eusebius of Caesarea explains the origins of and purpose of clerical celibacy in light of these passages. By the late 3rd century or early 4th century, just before the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius notes that during this time, some tried to argue that as the priests of the Old Testament fathered children, it is appropriate for priests of the New Testament to do likewise. Eusebius explained the error of this reasoning when he wrote:

"And this explanation of the ancient men of God begetting children cannot be said to apply to the Christians [i.e., Christian priests] to-day, when by God’s help through our Saviour’s Gospel teaching we can see with our own eyes many peoples and nations in city and country and field all hastening together, and united in running to learn the godly course of the teaching of the Gospel, for whom I am glad to say we are able to provide teachers and preachers of the word of holiness, free from all ties of life and anxious thoughts. And in our day these men are necessarily devoted to celibacy that they may have leisure for higher things; they have undertaken to bring up not one or two children but a prodigious number, and to educate them in godliness, and to care for their life generally. [i]"

The above is a repost from 1 Peter 5 website... explaining EARLY Church History on pastoral Celibacy...and its necessity.

https://onepeterfive.com/700-years-celibacy/

Let me know your thoughts....

While I certainly accept Eusebius as a generally reliable historian, I would subject his theology or theological tradition to scripture. I don’t consider him inspired or a prophet. I believe the early Church Fathers can be helpful in interpreting scripture and gaining an insight into how they early church applied scripture. I believe the same with regard to the Didache or The Shepherd of Hermas. They are helpful but not inerrant. Sometimes the early church fathers went off the rails such as with Origen.

Given Paul’s clear teaching on the requirements for elders, overseers and deacons I cannot accept that celibacy is scriptural. Further I do not hold that any church tradition or proclamation is inspired or carries the authority of scripture. Only the teachings of the Apostles are inerrant, whether relayed first or second hand. (With regard to the new covenant). They were New Testament prophets.