Posted on 02/01/2015 10:20:56 PM PST by Morgana
It’s easy. Did you ever hear of Adam and Eve? Did you ever hear of Abraham and Moses? Did you ever hear of God’s plan to be fruitful and multiply? Did you ever read what Jesus said about marriage in the Bible? Celibacy does have its value, for single people, for the unmarried, you should refrain from sin. That was all Paul was basically saying in the passages you cite. My point is REAL simple: Celibacy is NOT a requirement for service in the priesthood in the Bible. The Church came up with this requirement and not for many centuries after it was founded. That is my only basic point.
Well, fortunately not everyone followed his advice, if that’s the case you and I would not be here today having this conversation.
And I think you take Paul out of context. Keep in mind that he was an older man at the time he wrote it who was expecting Jesus to return shortly. In his former life as a Sanhedrin, he was more than likely married.
But I want to keep on point: Which is more important. My reading of 1 Timothy 3:2 tells me quite clearly that Paul has no problem with married men serving in the clergy. And that is my basic point. Not wishing to go off in a million different tangents.
One wife, not two, three four...
We know that Paul was not married at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, but not of his marital status prior to that. As you say, it is logical to assume he had been married before, but we have no proof. By the same token we have no PROOF that Paul had any children. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It only becomes a critical point if you are going to insist that Paul meant that ONLY a man who was married and had children could be a leader in the church. That makes no more sense than the Catholics insisting that a priest should not be married because of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians.
Since we lack the proof of Paul's marital or parental status, a reasonable reading of the scripture, to be in harmony with his writings to the Corinthians, would be that to be a bishop, if one is married, he cannot be married to more than one woman; if he has children, he needs to have raised them well, to be obedient and in submission. To read the scripture to REQUIRE a bishop be married and have children would require us to make assumptions about Paul that you yourself have pointed out cannot be proven either way.
You have a good day too.
Not wishing to declare victory.
Only trying to establish the Bible does not prohibit a married clergy.
That is all.
God bless!
1 Timothy 3:2 It behoves (δεῖ) therefore the overseer...
Greek - δεῖ - what must happen, i.e. what is absolutely necessary [http://biblehub.com/greek/1163.htm]
Now, you can argue and conjecture all you want about Paul's status as to having been married or not. As I mentioned, by all accounts he was Sanhedrin and they were required to be married. That aside. He still put the requirement for "overseers" what he did.
Except it is not clear if the "requirement" is that they must be married, or if the requirement is that if they are married, they must not marry more than one woman. You might think you have settled the matter, but that is hardly the case...
I suppose that would make sense if you believed they could have children without being married.
Paul advocated allowed for celibacy
Most of the men Jesus chose were married.. most of the early Bishops were married
An early local church council(Elvira,) said a man should not have sex before the Sunday service
It was not until the council of Nicaea that it was decided that priests could not marry
BUT Priests and popes continued to marry
366, Pope Damasus said that priests could marry, but not have sex with their wives. Then later Pope Siricius left his wife and family to become pope.. and then as if to "justify that he ordered priests could no longer be married.. But his order was simply ignored by the church
History records married popes until the 1100's
That statement makes absolutely no sense. If there is no requirement for them to be married, but there is a requirement that if they are married that they only marry one woman, then it follows that there is not a requirement that they have children, but if they have children they are required to have them under submission.
The Catholics believe bishops should not be married; you believe they MUST be married. I believe you are both too absolutist on something that the Bible does not declare an absolute position on either way, but does provide specific guidance in the case of a married church leader. I will not persuade you, you will not persuade me, and neither of us will persuade the Catholics. Since this is not an issue on which salvation is conditioned, I guess we will all find out when we get to Heaven who was right...
>>If there is no requirement for them to be married>>>p> What part of "it's a requirement to be the husband of one wife" is so hard to understand?
>>but there is a requirement that if they are married that they only marry one woman,<<
Who says? No where in that passage is the word "only". One could as easily inject "at least" and make it read "at least one wife". I mean if your inclined to add words anyway why not?
How odd that if Paul didn't mean to require a man be married with children he would include this.
1 Timothy 3:5 If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?
>>Since this is not an issue on which salvation is conditioned<<
If Catholics trust an organization that lies about the requirements for church leadership it most certainly pertains to salvation since they lie about other things as well.
Play with the words of scripture if you wish. I don't have to wait until I get to heaven to understand the clear words of scripture.
How does it make sense that both Paul and Jesus say the celibate life is preferred, then turn around and say a Church Leader must be married? It makes no sense. Paul even went as far as to say he who DOES NOT marry the virgin is doing better.
There are other things that the Catholic Church teaches that most certainly impact salvation - just not this teaching.
Look, if your church teaches a man must be married and have children before he can be a leader in the church, great. But if a church has a leader who has never been married, or has been married but never had children, I am not going to judge them based on this scripture, because it is not a matter of their salvation, and the scripture can be interpreted more than one way. There are enough "churches" ignoring scriptures that are much clearer, and have much greater impact on the salvation of souls where we need to stand against false doctrine.
I don't question what the apostles wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As for Paul not being married it is well understood that he was a member of the Sanhedrin who have a requirement that they be married and at least 30 years old. As for their commendation of not being married, they do not say that is for leadership. Paul does specifically spell out requirements for leadership.
As to why he made those requirements I'll simply let him speak.
1 Timothy 3:5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.