Can a "normal Joe" interpret Bible passages/scripture?

[Nicene]

Was there an exemption to 1 Tim. 2:1-3? There is none.is it written there that “priests exempted”?

*1 Tim 2:1: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
2: for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
3: This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, *

Ok sarcasm aside I assume the above verse isn’t really what you had in mind but rather this one correct?

*1 Tim 3:1: The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
2: Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
3: no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. *

What can you tell us about the verse? Why does Paul say this? Is he saying a bishop must be married? Or is it something else? Don’t think with 20th century eyes, you’ll have to go back to the first century and who they just converted. What practices were allowed within paganism, and what happened when they converted to christianity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Doreen]

mercygate:

Actually, there is a new book out: Catholicism for Dummies and it’s really quite good: simpler than the *Catechism. *

Gonna hafta get me this book! :ehh:

Yeah. This should all go to other threads, but we’re having so much fun here, aren’t we?

Sure enough.

Before we continue, will someone please explain all this “SOLA” stuff? I have never heard of this…maybe it’s an internet term? Help!

Mass: Last supper (aspects in all 4 Gospels. This is my Body . . . Do this . . . in the synoptics).

And the synoptics are…?

Acts 2:41-42: So those who received [Peter’s] word were baptized, and . . . they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (“Breaking of bread” is ‘code’ for celebrating the Eucharist.)

Just noticed in verse 39 Peter says “This promise (of the gift of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord God will call.” Just a little note to go along with the OP. That is: if HS = understanding, then NJ can interpret.

I Cor 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without** discerning the body** eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (What “body” must they discern in order not to bring judgment down upon himself? The Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Now, shouldn’t we be discussing this on the Eucharist thread? I know we’re getting confused because you and I have been going back and forth on both threads.

Well, in any event, here’s how I read that:
“discerning the body” means to me understanding/comprehending (ie knowing) Christ (the Body).

Now, about 4 years ago, I examined this Scripture and I prayed about what it really could be saying. This is one that eludes me yet for the most part, but some ideas that came to me were:

if every time we ate and drank, we confessed Christ as Lord, knowing what this means and who He is, we’ll always “remain” in Him and He in us.

Think of it. God designed our bodies. He made us so that we must eat and drink to live. If we daily confess Christ as Lord, thereby worshiping God, we’ll have a continual “remembrance” of Him…with every pang of hunger; parched mouth.

On the main CA homepage there is a good tract about the early practice of the Eucharist. Check out their tracts section for some of your other questions.

Read it. Helpful. Thanks. I have to print it and mull over it yet. There’s a lot there and I’m sure I’ll have questions.

What exactly is it about the Mass, personally for you, that troubles you?

The fact that it’s like a ritual…a human act that might usurp the FINISHED work of the Cross. (after all, that’s what it has done for many…they think --no Eucharist = no eternal life…and they think it’s impossible for me to be sin-free, so I can’t take the Eucharist)…it turns into a terrible battle, when Christ meant for it to be a laying down of our selves and submitting all to Him. So it seems almost like the work of the evil one to detract from the Grace factor, ya know?

I am unfamiliar with a tradition that does not celebrate the Lord’s supper in obedience to the Lord’s command that we do so.

I currently attend an e-free church and we celebrate the first Sunday of the month.

I am getting sleepy, so I had better quit before I start making sense to someone on here. :yawn:

 

[hurst]

malachi_a_serva:

I understand that for Roman Catholic’s the Magisterium has the final say on the interpretation of scripture.

The original receipients of the epistles determined for themselves the meaning of these/those letters. They did not have a Magisterium to tell them what they mean/meant. How is that in line with the teaching now?

It seems they did, though:

2 John 1:12 Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.

Romans 15:29 And I know, that when I come to you, I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 16:5 Now I will come to you, when I shall have passed through Macedonia. For I shall pass through Macedonia.

2 Corinthians 12:14 Behold now the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burthensome unto you.

Philippians 2:24 And I trust in the Lord, that I myself also shall come to you shortly.

1 Peter 5:1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.

1 Thessalonians 3:6 But now when Timothy came to us from you, and related to us your faith and charity, and that you have a good remembrance of us always, desiring to see us as we also to see you;

hurst

 

[Doreen]

My Holy Spirit can beat up your Holy Spirit!

Not!

Can too!

Your mother wears combat boots!

 

[Doreen]

Philthy:

Hi Doreen!

Just for clarification sake, the question is NOT, “CAN any Joe interpret Scripture?”, of course Joe can - and Joe does, routinely. The question is, “How can Joe know when he has interpreted Scripture properly - ie in accordance with the intent of the holy Spirit?” That much being said, look at the conclusion you have reached. Does it really make sense to you? I think that in your conditional (IF,THEN)you have forgotten something Einstein taught us: everything is RELATIVE. In this case, the message of Scripture is that relative to the offer of salvation by God, there is no distinction - it is offered to all. However, relative to the empowering with the charism of infallibility (and other things) there is a distinction. Did you ever notice that, with the exception of Luke, all of the NT is Apostolic? Clearly there is a distinction between the Apostles and us in this respect, no? Furthermore, look to your own experience. Is there any evidence in your own life that not every believer can interpret Scripure accurately? Is it possible for Scripture to be correctly interpreted in contradictory ways? Clearly there are those who disagree with your (or my) interpretations of Scripture. According to your conclusion, when such a difference occurs you would have to conclude either that the holy Spirit contradicts himself, or that they must not be believers. Right? Im sure you dont believe that, but it is a necessary implication of your conclusion and a stance many still take. In the end, such an attitude is nothing less than elevating our own interpretation of Scripture above all others. Where is that in the bible?
“Likewise you younger members - BE SUBJECT TO the presbyters…”

Phil

Hey Phil!

I’m going to go chew on this while I sleep…maybe I’ll be visited in the night by an angel who will make all things clear.

I hear ya, Phil. You got me thinking again. Nighty night. D.

 

[hurst]

Doreen:

Okay, but couldn’t the “presbyters” mean anyone who has the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Couldn’t it mean you or I after we’ve been adopted as Sons? and annointed by the Spirit?

It could if we are subsequently given the duty. For example, Christ appeared to Saul and commissioned him.

But Saul himself commissioned and set up leaders. It usually happens by already-existing leaders, especially since Christ set them up to do that.

Doreen:

I can see elders of the faith ministering on behalf of those who are still under some bondage…this makes perfect sense to me. That we’d pray over our hurting members.

The healthy are always the ones to help the sick, but that is not the same as ruling the Church.

Doreen:

So it’s becoming apparent that only in the Catholic doctrine, is the Catholic priest elevated. Would that be a fair assumption? I am not saying I don’t agree with it here…I am trying to get to the root of the system that currently endows Catholic priests with authority above others.

Men are called to submit to those ruling the Church.

1 Peter 5:5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.

Wives are called to submit to their husbands. As for women not married, I don’t have a verse for that one.

Who are the ancients in that verse?

1 Peter 5:1 The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come:

Other mention of ruling:

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine

Matthew 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

I think it is clear even in scripture that the ministers were given a certain kind of authority to rule.

hurst

 

[eaglesmark]

1 Tim 2:1: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
2: for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
3: This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

Ok sarcasm aside I assume the above verse isn’t really what you had in mind but rather this one correct?

*1 Tim 3:1: The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
2: Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
3: no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. *

What can you tell us about the verse? Why does Paul say this? Is he saying a bishop must be married? Or is it something else? Don’t think with 20th century eyes, you’ll have to go back to the first century and who they just converted. What practices were allowed within paganism, and what happened when they converted to christianity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Here Paul gives the qualifications of a bishop.
You must have noticed the word “MUST” haven’t you? What does it show if there is a “MUST” word. Is it to be lightly taken into account? or a command? When you write something and placing a “MUST” word, it shows that it has to be followed. The verse you just gave me clearly shows that a bishop must be married. Not just a married man, but he must have a good report, an exemplary man in the curch. He is to be the model of the congregation.

And Oh, don’t stop in verse 3, continue reading to the following verses… 4 and 5…

4)One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5)(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The verse is a clear instruction, how to choose a bishop. For one to be an overseer in the church, this is the qualifications. Can an unmarried man rule his own house?, and put his children in subjection? He doesnt even have a wife how can he have children… except for some who have children whom they secretly kept from the society.

 

[eaglesmark]

1 Tim 2:1: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
2: for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
3: This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

Ok sarcasm aside I assume the above verse isn’t really what you had in mind but rather this one correct?

*1 Tim 3:1: The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
2: Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
3: no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. *

What can you tell us about the verse? Why does Paul say this? Is he saying a bishop must be married? Or is it something else? Don’t think with 20th century eyes, you’ll have to go back to the first century and who they just converted. What practices were allowed within paganism, and what happened when they converted to christianity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Here Paul gives the qualifications of a bishop.
You must have noticed the word “MUST” haven’t you? What does it show if there is a “MUST” word. Is it to be lightly taken into account? or a command? When you write something and placing a “MUST” word, it shows that it has to be followed. The verse you just gave me clearly shows that a bishop must be married. Not just a married man, but he must have a good report, an exemplary man in the curch. He is to be the model of the congregation.

And Oh, don’t stop in verse 3, continue reading to the following verses… 4 and 5…

4)One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5)(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The verse is a clear instruction, how to choose a bishop. For one to be an overseer in the church, this is the qualifications. Can an unmarried man rule his own house?, and put his children in subjection? He doesnt even have a wife how can he have children… except for some who have children whom they secretly kept from the society.

You were saying that “What can you tell us about the verse? Why does Paul say this? Is he saying a bishop must be married? Or is it something else? Don’t think with 20th century eyes, you’ll have to go back to the first century and who they just converted. What practices were allowed within paganism, and what happened when they converted to christianity.”

Continue to verse 6:Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

New converts are never allowed to become bishops. And true christianity never try to mix pagan practices with what Jesus had taught.

 

[hurst]

Doreen:

So now, you must give me some strong evidence as to how my independent acts of sacrifice in communing with Christ are in error … and that there’s truth to the need for Mass/Eucharist, etc.

First of all, your independent spiritual communions are not in error. They are valid and praiseworthy.

However, it is error to believe the physical Eucharist is not needed.

Christ himself said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or we do not have life in us. The Church teaches that it is morally necessary because without the nourishment it gives to our soul, our supernatural life cannot be permanently maintained. Thus we are required to receive Communion at least once a year at Easter.
(Ott, p.397)

But the efficacy of the physical communion is proportional to the interior disposition of the recipient: the greater the desire for union, the more the communicant receives.

hurst

 

[eaglesmark]

Nicene:

How many rites are in the catholic church? Which rites may a priest be married in? Are there any latin rite priests that are married?

Get back to us when you have the answers.

Oh and by the way, you didn’t look up “Liberated Christians” did you? Here is another protestant group you should be interested in “The Shakers”

They both believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura as well. Don’t forget that invisible umbrella of salvation you all have.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in and say the Creed?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Somebody replied to me that only latin rite priests are not allowed to marry. Let’s set that aside.

The point here is that, yes nobody would force anybody to be a priest. But as what the bible had told us, that it is not God’s doctrine to forbid any one to be married. The bible is teaching that a man may choose not to be married but it must be noted that it is not God’s commandment to forbid any body from being married even a priest!

Can a priest remain a priest if he should choose to marry? Or is it mandated or commanded that priests do not marry?

Take a look again 1 Tim. 4:1-3.

 

[hurst]

Doreen:

I don’t see this stuff of “temporal punishment” anywhere in the Bible. I would be willing to consider it necessary to the faith walk, if I knew it were coming from somewhere other than man’s idea that we have to punish ourselves for God’s forgiveness.

First of all, try to distinguish between forgiving the person and forgiving what the person does.

Secondly, consider Apocalypse 2

Apoc 2:3 And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. 4 But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. 5 Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

Apoc 2:19 I know thy works, and thy faith, and thy charity, and thy ministry, and thy patience, and thy last works which are more than the former. 20 But I have against thee a few things: because thou sufferest the woman Jezabel, … 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed: and they that commit adultery with her shall be in very great tribulation, except they do penance from their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give to every one of you according to your works.

This shows that the faithful were falling short, and had to obtain forgiveness for their deeds via penance and and amendment even though they were otherwise pleasing.

Doreen:

Grace is grace…not something to be earned. SO that being true, it’s hard to accept any other acts of penance that might be extolled as necessary to salvation/faith.

Do the passages in Apocalypse 2 help you any?

Besides this, regarding grace, while it is true we have to “believe to receive”, we also have to “use it or lose it”.

Matthew 25:29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away.

In other words, those who have works of faith shall be given more grace; but those who neglect works of faith, even the grace they seemed to have shall be taken away.

Doreen:

In fact, it speaks against everything Paul tried to encourage the early churches to avoid. That is, adding anything to grace.

Because our dependence on Him and Him alone is thwarted.

But we must invest our grace by works of faith to bring glory to God. We will be judged according to these deeds.

Doreen:

Consider this…isn’t it possible that thinking we have to pay in any way leaves the door wide open for the devil to continually charge us and make us loathe ourselves, therefore discouraging us, and keeping us from true freedom in Christ? Our sins would always have power over us in this case.

That is actually the case. Due to our sins, the devil has power over us. After baptism we are freed from that bondage to the devil and sin. However, suppose we sin after baptism? Yikes! We now give double insult to Our Savior for having sinned after doing penance and being cleansed. We must do penance again and return to our first works of charity (Apoc 2). If we don’t, then we can only expect to eventually be “spit out”.

Consider that the devil wants you to think you don’t have to do anything, and leaves you alone since you no longer put forth effort to overcome your sins.

The fact is, we have to cooperate with God’s grace to overcome our sins. We work with Him. We respond to what He gives us to overome sin and become pure, since it is impossible to see God without holiness.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.

2 Timothy 2:22 But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Doreen:

This is what I see as the danger.

On the other hand, if we know, believe, and stand on the fact that He paid the price ONCE and FOR ALL time, we truly can be free of that sin…it has no power to convict us and tear our Spirit down again.

That is not being disputed. But most Protestants will take it further to mean we do not cooperate with God to grow in grace or overcome sin.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

hurst

 

[eaglesmark]

hurst:

First of all, try to distinguish between forgiving the person and forgiving what the person does.

Secondly, consider Apocalypse 2

Apoc 2:3 And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. 4 But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. 5 Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

Apoc 2:19 I know thy works, and thy faith, and thy charity, and thy ministry, and thy patience, and thy last works which are more than the former. 20 But I have against thee a few things: because thou sufferest the woman Jezabel, … 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed: and they that commit adultery with her shall be in very great tribulation, except they do penance from their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give to every one of you according to your works.

This shows that the faithful were falling short, and had to obtain forgiveness for their deeds via penance and and amendment even though they were otherwise pleasing.

Do the passages in Apocalypse 2 help you any?

Besides this, regarding grace, while it is true we have to “believe to receive”, we also have to “use it or lose it”.

Matthew 25:29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away.

In other words, those who have works of faith shall be given more grace; but those who neglect works of faith, even the grace they seemed to have shall be taken away.

But we must invest our grace by works of faith to bring glory to God. We will be judged according to these deeds.

That is actually the case. Due to our sins, the devil has power over us. After baptism we are freed from that bondage to the devil and sin. However, suppose we sin after baptism? Yikes! We now give double insult to Our Savior for having sinned after doing penance and being cleansed. We must do penance again and return to our first works of charity (Apoc 2). If we don’t, then we can only expect to eventually be “spit out”.

Consider that the devil wants you to think you don’t have to do anything, and leaves you alone since you no longer put forth effort to overcome your sins.

The fact is, we have to cooperate with God’s grace to overcome our sins. We work with Him. We respond to what He gives us to overome sin and become pure, since it is impossible to see God without holiness.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.

2 Timothy 2:22 But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

That is not being disputed. But most Protestants will take it further to mean we do not cooperate with God to grow in grace or overcome sin.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

hurst

in @ Peter 1:10, real christians are incouraged to do good, because they are the workmanship of God unto good works. Not do good to be saved. But do good because God has given you grace.

And, we must note also that if we do good, we avoid ourselves from sinning. And we avoid embarrasing our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul admitted that he had sinned. But does this mean he lost his salvation because he has sinned. Are you trying to say that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not sufficient for Him to save you? Is His sacrifice temporary just as those in the old testament patriarchs sacrifices. That they have to sacrifice daily, because their blood sacrifice of animals were just temporary.

As you have said, “You have to use it or loose it”. I beg to disagree. As in Eph. 2:10, those who really were truly saved by the grace of God can really do good.

Salvation that God has given is secure John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand…

The bible that you used, the term repentance is replaced with “Penance”. Jesus never taught anyone to seek the forgiveness or to confess to a priest, (that is penance). What he taught is to ask God directly for forgiveness ang to turn away from sin, that is repentance.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Can a “normal Joe” interpret Bible passages/scripture?

Of course not. A “normal David,” on the other hand, is fully qualified.

 

[Like]

DavidFilmer:

Of course not. A “normal David,” on the other hand, is fully qualified.

All right David, that did it! I’m going to bed…

 

[Lazerlike42]

OK first of all, the idea that an overseer is required to be married completely falls apart because Paul was not married. The command that they must be the husband of one wife means that they can’t be married to 2 or 3 people, something which was very common back then. If you want to claim that it means one was required to be married to be an overseer, then Paul did not follow his own commands.

Secondly, no, latin rite priests are not permitted to marry. This doesn’t matter. For one, Paul recommended celibacy all over the Bible. Secondly, he told Timothy that he ought not get married. Thirdly, he said that nobody should get married. Fourthly, God actually did forbid Jeremiah to get married.

But most importantly of all: nobody requires anyone to become a Catholic priest. If a person wishes to become a latin rite priest, then no he may not get married. But this is not a doctrine, it is a practice. Paul was very clearly referring to a doctrine which forbids to marry, because he calls it a “doctrine of demons.” This practice cannot be what Paul was talking about because it is not a doctrine. Paul is speaking about people who taught as a rule of faith that marriage was not permitted. The gnostics did do this: it was a doctrine, a matter of faith. The Latin rite priesthood teaches no such thing. Anybody who knows anything about the Catholic Church knows that the Church holds marriage up so high compared to how many Protestant churches do. The level of reverance given marriage by Catholics cannot be surpassed in any religion.

Now on to works and savation.

eaglesmark:

And, we must note also that if we do good, we avoid ourselves from sinning… neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand…

Please note that Christ does not say that man cannot jump out of His hand of his own free will. Do you really think God would hold onto us if we didn’t want Him to? He would force Himself upon us? God does not rape us into salvation.

Paul makes it extremely clear that salvation can be lost. In 1 Corinthians 9:25-27, he says that he needs to make sure he isn’t disqualified after preaching to others. Read what he says in Philippians (3:9):

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.

Note that Paul points out that those whom don’t think this way are not mature in their faith and must grow to believe this.

If you need anymore, read Hebrews.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

It makes it very clear that if a Christian sins deliberately, the sacrifice of Christ is no good for that person. If a Christian sins deliberately, he is profaning the blood of Christ and will be condemned if he does not repent.

Further, Jesus did give the Apostles the power to forgive sins. John 20:21-23 makes this clear. Note something very important here: they may retain sins if they choose. They must * what the sins are if they are to choose between forgiving and retaining. Note something more important: this is one of only a few (possibly only the 2nd time, but I am not sure) times that God breathes on man. The first was to give man life. This time is to give the ability to forgive sins. The ability to forgive sins is just as important as life itself.

Also, you are misunderstanding the usage of the word penance. It does not always mean what you think it does. It also means “repentance,” a usage which was more common at the time that the Bible he quoted was published.*

 

[mercygate]

eaglesmark:

nicene,

if you would have to read v 6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

See? he did not command this. He was just trying to tell us that we must avoid fornication. But if a man can avoid fornication that is he can contain himself, with out being married, and he chooses not to be married then go ahead it is your will not to be married.
But with the case of priests, priests are forbidden to be married if they wish to remain as priests. Aren’t they? Have you seen a priest, still in his priestly office and married? It is commanded that priests remain celebate.

Was there an exemption to 1 Tim. 2:1-3? There is none.is it written there that “priests exempted”?

I know several Catholic priests who are married and have children. They were former Episcopal ministers – some members of my seminary class – who converted to the Catholic faith and were admitted to Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.

This thread is about interpreting the Bible. Celibacy for those who seek God with an undivided heart is entirely consistent with Scripture. And the staunchest proponents of the celibacy of the clergy are often those men who are married and who do have families. Fr. Ray Ryland comes immediately to mind.

 

[Michael_Francis]

The topic of this thread is the interpretation of scripture, not celibate priesthood.
Please remain on topic or the thread will be closed.
There are at least two celibacy threads, HERE and HERE .

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

OK first of all, the idea that an overseer is required to be married completely falls apart because Paul was not married. The command that they must be the husband of one wife means that they can’t be married to 2 or 3 people, something which was very common back then. If you want to claim that it means one was required to be married to be an overseer, then Paul did not follow his own commands.

Secondly, no, latin rite priests are not permitted to marry. This doesn’t matter. For one, Paul recommended celibacy all over the Bible. Secondly, he told Timothy that he ought not get married. Thirdly, he said that nobody should get married. Fourthly, God actually did forbid Jeremiah to get married.

But most importantly of all: nobody requires anyone to become a Catholic priest. If a person wishes to become a latin rite priest, then no he may not get married. But this is not a doctrine, it is a practice. Paul was very clearly referring to a doctrine which forbids to marry, because he calls it a “doctrine of demons.” This practice cannot be what Paul was talking about because it is not a doctrine. Paul is speaking about people who taught as a rule of faith that marriage was not permitted. The gnostics did do this: it was a doctrine, a matter of faith. The Latin rite priesthood teaches no such thing. Anybody who knows anything about the Catholic Church knows that the Church holds marriage up so high compared to how many Protestant churches do. The level of reverance given marriage by Catholics cannot be surpassed in any religion.

Now on to works and savation.

Please note that Christ does not say that man cannot jump out of His hand of his own free will. Do you really think God would hold onto us if we didn’t want Him to? He would force Himself upon us? God does not rape us into salvation.

Paul makes it extremely clear that salvation can be lost. In 1 Corinthians 9:25-27, he says that he needs to make sure he isn’t disqualified after preaching to others. Read what he says in Philippians (3:9):

Note that Paul points out that those whom don’t think this way are not mature in their faith and must grow to believe this.

If you need anymore, read Hebrews.

It makes it very clear that if a Christian sins deliberately, the sacrifice of Christ is no good for that person. If a Christian sins deliberately, he is profaning the blood of Christ and will be condemned if he does not repent.

Further, Jesus did give the Apostles the power to forgive sins. John 20:21-23 makes this clear. Note something very important here: they may retain sins if they choose. They must * what the sins are if they are to choose between forgiving and retaining. Note something more important: this is one of only a few (possibly only the 2nd time, but I am not sure) times that God breathes on man. The first was to give man life. This time is to give the ability to forgive sins. The ability to forgive sins is just as important as life itself.

Also, you are misunderstanding the usage of the word penance. It does not always mean what you think it does. It also means “repentance,” a usage which was more common at the time that the Bible he quoted was published.*

You said:
But most importantly of all: nobody requires anyone to become a Catholic priest. If a person wishes to become a latin rite priest, then no he may not get married. But this is not a doctrine, it is a practice. Paul was very clearly referring to a doctrine which forbids to marry, because he calls it a “doctrine of demons.” This practice cannot be what Paul was talking about because it is not a doctrine. Paul is speaking about people who taught as a rule of faith that marriage was not permitted. The gnostics did do this: it was a doctrine, a matter of faith. The Latin rite priesthood teaches no such thing. Anybody who knows anything about the Catholic Church knows that the Church holds marriage up so high compared to how many Protestant churches do. The level of reverance given marriage by Catholics cannot be surpassed in any religion.
Isn’t it strange when you are practicing what is not your doctrine? Why do you practice it? It is practiced because it is taught. It is taught because it is a doctrine. Things that are not the doctrine of the church are not taught in the church, and is not practiced in the church.

 

[eaglesmark]

i think this is still in line with the topic can a “normal joe” interpret the bible, since i was asking friends out there how they would interpret 1 Tim. 4:1-3… However if you think this is not apropriate for this topic, can you give us the right thread so that we may continue to have a lively and beautiful discussion about the topic.

Thanks,

Eaglesmark

 

[clmowry]

eaglesmark:

Here Paul gives the qualifications of a bishop.
You must have noticed the word “MUST” haven’t you? What does it show if there is a “MUST” word. Is it to be lightly taken into account? or a command? When you write something and placing a “MUST” word, it shows that it has to be followed. The verse you just gave me clearly shows that a bishop must be married. Not just a married man, but he must have a good report, an exemplary man in the curch. He is to be the model of the congregation.

Well that clears that up.

So since a bishop MUST be married then I guess he’d have to leave his post immediately if his wife died. Since He MUST have a wife.

Couldn’t possibly be that the MUST refers to the clause it is contained in or that the Bishop must have no more than one wife?

Well at least the OP has been answered. For Proof that normal Joe’s cannot correctly interpret scripture see the above thread.

looks for a wall to bang his head against

Chuck