Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm.... This kind of sounds similar to "Once Saved Always Saved" thinking.
There is an element of that in it. But it's more than just OSAS. It's a question of what exactly saves us? Is it faith alone? Or faith plus works? And more works. And more works. Etc.....
There is an element of that in it. But it's more than just OSAS. It's a question of what exactly saves us? Is it faith alone? Or faith plus works? And more works. And more works. Etc.....
Okay. Soooooo, what if I believe it's faith + works that saves* us?
(*= setting aside the fullness of what it means to be truly 'saved' for a moment)
Marriage in of itself is optional. When Jesus said, "...some renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven..." he wasn't limiting this to non-clergy.
But we have been given requirements for an elder and deacon.
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound[g] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Which of these and how many can be optional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
It is widely accepted that Jesus himself was considered to be the "High Priest." Yet, the majority consensus is that Jesus was not married. Plus, there's no evidence that any of the Apostles were married (Yes, Peter had a mother-in-law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Peter was married at the time of his ministry).
We're talking about qualifications for overseers in the church on earth. Yes, Jesus is our high priest but He is the head of the church and in heaven, not an overseer. We are not told the marital status of all the apostles, but the one we do know about was also an overseer. I can only speculate because he was qualified. There are no marital requirements for an apostle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
It's' interesting how often the Catholic Church is criticized for not allowing priests to marry (once they're ordained, that is), claiming that the Church is "forcing" priests to be celibate.
Looking from the outside, it seems many priest want to be sexually active and quite a few are. There's plenty evidence to support it. So why would they commit sinful sexual acts if they don't have to. Why can't they just do as Paul says in 1 Cor. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
But the way you and others are reading the passages from 1 Timothy, you're saying that Christianity "forces" its clergy to marry.
Not saying forces, but it is a requirement. The passage gives the reason why they must be married. or if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Pretty important reason. Managing a dog is NOT the same.
Not saying forces, but it is a requirement. The passage gives the reason why they must be married. or if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
You're making a distinction without a difference. If marriage is a requirement to serve as a clergyman, then you would force marriage on aspiring clergy.
Are all unmarried Protestant clergymen serving invalidly in your opinion? Should they be "de-frocked"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
That's my understanding.
So long as you understand that "your understanding" is a novelty that is unheard of for the first 1500+ years of Christianity. If that doesn't bother you, then fine. But it would sure bother me as I don't claim to be more enlightened than the sum total of 1500+ years of Christian thought.
Looking from the outside, it seems many priest want to be sexually active and quite a few are. There's plenty evidence to support it. So why would they commit sinful sexual acts if they don't have to. Why can't they just do as Paul says in 1 Cor. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Giving a sexual deviant a wife does not cure his sexual deviance. If a priest is willing to have sex outside marriage, then what good is giving him a wife? He has already had sex outside marriage, and he'll do it again if he is unrepentant.
I was unaware the vow of celibacy had CHANGED. I'm not RCC so I don't keep up with the ever changing rules. If they can marry, why do I still hear about priest sexually abusing others.
So it's ok to sexually abuse her if she's your wife ??
You're making a distinction without a difference. If marriage is a requirement to serve as a clergyman, then you would force marriage on aspiring clergy.
I kinda see what you're saying. I don't see it as forcing. Wanting to be married and have children is the norm. Requiring celibacy is forcing to go against what is natural. I don't make the rules. I only read them. The passage gives the reason why a leader of God's church must have children. 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Do you view this as a requirement or is optional as well? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Are all unmarried Protestant clergymen serving invalidly in your opinion? Should they be "de-frocked"?
Absolutely. It's not my opinion. It's in God's word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
So long as you understand that "your understanding" is a novelty that is unheard of for the first 1500+ years of Christianity. If that doesn't bother you, then fine. But it would sure bother me as I don't claim to be more enlightened than the sum total of 1500+ years of Christian thought.
I kinda see what you're saying. I don't see it as forcing. Wanting to be married and have children is the norm. Requiring celibacy is forcing to go against what is natural.
Marriage and children is certainly normal and natural; but it doesn't follow that there's anything unnatural about celibacy. Nobody is required to get married or have sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
Do you view this as a requirement or is optional as well? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
None of these things are "optional". You have totally missed the point. It is a requirement that an overseer must be the husband of one wife. That means that if he is married and his wife dies, he may not remarry. It does not mean that he must be married. Which brings up another problem with your view. If a clergyman's wife dies, is he required to re-marry if he wants to continue in the ministry?
You're reading the passage in such a strange, novel way. Who else reads it with your interpretation? Which teachers or theologians do you appeal to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
1500 years of the RCC not the church.
Oh really? Where was the Church hiding then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This kind of sounds similar to "Once Saved Always Saved" thinking.
