I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?
Since when do you read “better” to equal “required”? You are totally distorting and taking things out of context, including this line from Paul.
In that same letter Paul provides the context he is talking about celibacy in.
1Co 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.I say therefore to the unmarried (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP) and widows, It is good for them IF they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better - if you can handle it. Obviously for these people who cannot, it would be better if they were married. But marriage is not a disqualifier for service to God as a church leadership position.
Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.
If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader, because we know from Scripture that statement is FALSE. Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married, and therefore, the bible would not have to specify ‘husband of one wife’ anywhere when explaining the qualifications to be a church leader because none of the church leaders, present or future, would ever possibly be married.
When you take one sentence out of context you can easily create doctrines and traditions that are not true. When you have to be forced to view things in the context they are given, and supported by other areas of Scripture, it’s a different story.
“Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better if you can handle it.”
Exactly. And priests are called to be devoted to God. Read into it whatever you want, but Paul is saying that priests ought to be celibate so that their attentions are not divided.
“Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.”
That’s because he’s referring to two things here.
1, if you are ALREADY MARRIED, you must be the man of one woman. Again, for obvious reasons. If you are unmarried, and plan to be married, you don’t meet this qualification. This is for already married men.
2, he’s very explicit later on, that in his opinion, he believes that celibacy is superior to marriage. He acknowledges that there are others who do not have his calling, but the ideal is for men who can devote themselves entirely to God.
You are hinging your entire argument on one word, rather then on the whole paragraph that Paul devotes to discussing the issue around celibacy. And he says just the opposite that you do, that celibacy is to be preferred.
“If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader.”
Why do you know that to be false? All the requirements say is that if you are married, you must be the husband of one wife. That’s it. It doesn’t say that marriage is required at all. It does say that already married men can be bishops. It does not say that those who wish to get married should become priests, paul says just the opposite.
If you cannot abide by celibacy, get married, have kids. But don’t become a priest like Paul. The unmarried man can be devoted entirely to God. You sincerely believe that celibacy is not the preferred state for priests?
“Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married.”
False. Again, this comes back to the question regarding continence. If an already married man were to become a priest, he is expected to remain continent. This is no different today than it was in the age of apostles.