No sir, the verse doesn’t say a Bishop must be married, it says he should not have been married more than once. Paul was not married was he? It is not a criteria that he be married, but that (if he be married) he not be married more than once.Verses 2 i.e. the husband of one wife and verse 4 i.e. he manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.
This is part of the criteria for a church leader. What the Catholic church has done is to disqualify married men for the reason they are married.
Interesting! Over at the thread, “How Much Training In Protestantism…” I was being attacked for question the ministry background of an, ex-Baptist preacher. Your post confirms and is an example of why we should be cautious of those who appear to have an ax to grand with the religions they come from, or even if they don’t appear to have an ax to grind, to not automatically accept them as experts about the religion they left. I agree with you exposing who this man is and was. It matters, especially for this topic. I would say it always matters.His history is highly flawed. He lost me at “monks and hermits in the first century”. This form of life did not evolve until after the persecutions were lifted in the 4th Century.
Here’s his gripe. He left the Church to marry – despite having made promises of celibacy, which could hardly have come as a surprise. He is annoyed that married Anglicans and Lutherans have been admitted to Holy Orders under the Pastoral Provision.
He calls himself “Father” although he no longer has faculties to function as a priest, and he is part of “Rent-a-Priest”. My eyeballs are so far up inside my cranium I can’t even type.
I undersood this verse to say he must be faithful to his wife. Your application would exempt widowers also and I don’t think that was the intent. Faitful to ones wife is one has oneNo sir, the verse doesn’t say a Bishop must be married, it says he should not have been married more than once. Paul was not married was he? It is not a criteria that he be married, but that (if he be married) he not be married more than once.
Yet the Apostle John was not married. So much for the “absolute” regarding marriage as a requirement for what JA4 refers to as “leadership.” Marriage is simply NOT a requirement for “leadership” if you base your case on Scripture.I undersood this verse to say he must be faithful to his wife. Your application would exempt widowers also and I don’t think that was the intent. Faitful to ones wife is one has one
Ralph
I meant to type “if” one has one. I don’t think I said anything about marriage being a “requirement for leadership”, because I don’t think the text in question is saying that marriage is a “requirement”. I do think it is refering to those who are married. Those who are married must be faithful to that wife.Yet the Apostle John was not married. So much for the “absolute” regarding marriage as a requirement for what JA4 refers to as “leadership.” Marriage is simply NOT a requirement for “leadership” if you base your case on Scripture.
I was wondering how you know the apostle John was not married?Yet the Apostle John was not married. So much for the “absolute” regarding marriage as a requirement for what JA4 refers to as “leadership.” Marriage is simply NOT a requirement for “leadership” if you base your case on Scripture.
The “leadership” comment was a consistent claim from JustAsking4. I’m sorry if I seemed to attribute it to you. Yes: scripture refers to those who are (or WERE) married.I meant to type “if” one has one. I don’t think I said anything about marriage being a “requirement for leadership”, because I don’t think the text in question is saying that marriage is a “requirement”. I do think it is refering to those who are married. Those who are married must be faithful to that wife.
Ralph
The same way we understand that the others WERE married: The ancient and consistent Tradition of the Church that John alone of the Twelve was unmarried.I was wondering how you know the apostle John was not married?
Ralph
I was just curious as to where you find that traditionThe same way we understand that the others WERE married: The ancient and consistent Tradition of the Church that John alone of the Twelve was unmarried.
This would be consistent with the equally ancient Tradition that John was very young when he began to follow Our Lord.
Tom;3755322]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Verses 2 i.e. the husband of one wife and verse 4 i.e. he manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.
This is part of the criteria for a church leader. What the Catholic church has done is to disqualify married men for the reason they are married.
Huh? Look again at the context of the passage. Paul is laying down the criteria for leadership and saying that a man who is married and has children should be considered. In fact he lays out clearly that this is a good way to know if this man would be a good leader in the church.Tom
No sir, the verse doesn’t say a Bishop must be married, it says he should not have been married more than once.
We don’t know for sure.Paul was not married was he?
Where in any passage in the NT that deals with church leadership that a man who is to be a leader is not to be married? I’m not aware of any.It is not a criteria that he be married, but that (if he be married) he not be married more than once.
The Orthodox do not permit married priests to be bishops. Why single out the Catholic Church?Huh? Look again at the context of the passage. Paul is laying down the criteria for leadership and saying that a man who is married and has children should be considered. In fact he lays out clearly that this is a good way to know if this man would be a good leader in the church.
We don’t know for sure.
Where in any passage in the NT that deals with church leadership that a man who is to be a leader is not to be married? I’m not aware of any.
Secondly, the Roman Catholic church disqualifies any man who is married from being a bishop in the church. This is beyond dispute.
I’m most familar with the Roman church and is it not true there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics?mercygate;3757617]The Orthodox do not permit married priests to be bishops. Why single out the Catholic Church?
I don’t know what most of the Christian world believes about this. What i look for is what do the Scriptures say or hint at. It seems that he was married when he says this in I Corinthians 9:5–Who isn’t sure about Paul? Speak for yourself. The rest of the Christian world has no problem with understanding that he was single.
Only in English is that word “wife”. In Greek it’s “adelphen gunakia” “sister-woman.” While “gune” can mean wife, it is not inevitable nor consistent with the rest of Paul’s declamations on remaining single to insist upon that translation here – though many translations use it. Furthermore, Paul is posing a conditional statement which perfectly well can be understood to mean that he is NOT taking along a wife of any kind, believing or otherwise.I’m most familar with the Roman church and is it not true there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics?
I don’t know what most of the Christian world believes about this. What i look for is what do the Scriptures say or hint at. It seems that he was married when he says this in I Corinthians 9:5–
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
He certainly seems to imply he was married.
Do you think Peter was married or did he take along his sister?Only in English is that word “wife”. In Greek it’s “adelphen gunakia” “sister-woman.” While “gune” can mean wife, it is not inevitable nor consistent with the rest of Paul’s declamations on remaining single to insist upon that translation here – though many translations use it. Furthermore, Paul is posing a conditional statement which perfectly well can be understood to mean that he is NOT taking along a wife of any kind, believing or otherwise.
What does that have to do with Paul?Do you think Peter was married or did he take along his sister?
Since Paul brings up this word “wife” in the passage in reference to Peter it would help us to know if the word “wife” means woman or sister. Was Peter taking his sister or some woman or his wife on his journeys?Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you think Peter was married or did he take along his sister?
mercygate
What does that have to do with Paul?
Although you will doubtless reject this as mythical Catholic propaganda, tradition holds that Peter served with his wife and that she preceded him in martyrdom at Rome.Since Paul brings up this word “wife” in the passage in reference to Peter it would help us to know if the word “wife” means woman or sister. Was Peter taking his sister or some woman or his wife on his journeys?
Yes, actually we do know for sure,Paul was not married, see 1 Cor 7,8.Paul was not married was he?
‘We don’t know for sure.”
1 Corinthians 7, 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
Paul was not married, see 1 Cor 7,8Where in any passage in the NT that deals with church leadership that a man who is to be a leader is not to be married? I’m not aware of any.
www.drbo.org:1 Corinthians 7, 1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (2 “Have his own wife”… That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.)
www.drbo.org:1 Corinthians 7, 6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. (6 “By indulgence”… That is, by a condescension to your weakness.) 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.
1 Corinthians 7, 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
I don’t reject this. I suppose i would if i believed that there were no married leaders in the church in the early centuries.mercygate;3759481]Although you will doubtless reject this as mythical Catholic propaganda, tradition holds that Peter served with his wife and that she preceded him in martyrdom at Rome.
Scripture really doesn’t say clearly either way. If Paul were married what would that mean in regards to a celibate leadership?That still affirms nothing of Paul’s state, for which both evidence from Scripture and tradition hold that he was single.
Should we take these passages as him never being married?Yes, actually we do know for sure,Paul was not married, see 1 Cor 7,8.
Paul was not married, see 1 Cor 7,8