Posted on 11/08/2003 6:58:17 AM PST by ninenot
Right.
"Cleveland Rocks"...BWAAAHH!!! The "Future Church" probably meets in the John Lennon "suite" of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
Romans 3:28:
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Unless I'm missing something, this verse (and the entire context of the chapter itself) pretty well sums up an answer to your statement. I realize your statement wasn't a question...it was a statement. And so those terms are given...
I'm sorry but I've completely lost you on this one. It has nothing to do with "my reading" of Paul or Luther's reading of Paul. The words of Paul could not be any plainer -- clergy are allowed to marry if they wish and forbidding people to marry is the teaching of demons and deceiving spirits. It's clear also that Peter and a number of other apostles were married and that they brought their wives with them on their mission journeys.When I'm driving along and see a stop sign, I don't ask others in the car what their "reading" of it is or research what Henry Ford thought on the subject. The meaning of the stop sign is plain on its face so I stop the car. Similarly, Paul's teachings, which were given by God, are clear and don't depend upon anyone's interpretation whether they be Catholic, Baptist, or Lutheran.
Evangelical denominations have pretty much come into agreement that anything which interferes with a fertilized egg maturing to a full-term baby is a sin.What does this have to do with priestly celibacy?
All I'm doing is advocating a return to what scriptures say and the early church practiced. Forcing clergy to be celibate is clearly a heresy.
It was quite interesting.
First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down. Thus, while Scripture provides foundation, it is only 1/2 of the foundation(s) on which the Church operates.
Now to the article. Summarily, the author, who had studied the issue extensively, brought up continence--a very important link.
Most of the discussion on these threads has been specifically about celibacy--loosely, NOT being married. But continence is rarely brought up, because continence is deliberately sacrificing legitimate marital relations for the sake of a greater good. In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.
Secondly, the author mentioned the difference between "ius" and "lex." "Ius" is the unwritten law, whereas "lex" is the written law. It's sort of akin to manners: most of them are 'unwritten' laws, but failure to practice them is considered to be wrong, just as failure to practice the "written" manners is.
The author contends that the "ius" of the marriage question was that priests should NOT marry, or if they are ordained after marriage, that they should (with the assent of the wife) become continent.
The "lex" followed in around 1100-1200, whenever.
Both the "ius" and the "lex" were widely and flagrantly disobeyed, but by no means was this disobedience practiced by ALL priests at ALL times. It waxed and waned.
Summarily: 1) Continence was part of the Tradition, and both continence and celibacy should be considered when discussing the matter. 2) What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law. This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture.
Now let's argue.
Yup, even Peter was married.
Matt.8:14
[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
LOL! Where on earth did you come up with that idea?I'm sorry, but the Catholic church has painted itself into an intellectual corner on this one and the excuses are becoming sillier and sillier. Why can't you just follow the clear teachings of scripture and the practices of the early church?
Sometimes, yes. I disagree with the Baptists when they claim that drinking wine is a sin. But if you ask me which erroneous doctrine has done the most damage, I think that forbidding clergy to marry when scriptures clearly permit it is the clear winner. It has caused many people to fall into sin, just as Paul warned.On the other hand, Paul prophesying that the heresy of forbidding to marry would enter the church is a pretty nifty proof of his apostleship.
Indeed it is for those whose beliefs are centered around His Word. For others it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Man made beliefs supercede the Bible.
Matt.8:14
[14] And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
Outstanding point. I will ponder over that. Obviously, the widower should have children...and thus ruling over them, but the fact that he is WITHOUT a current wife makes for interesting debate because the CURRENT state would be in question, as opposed to the fact that he once was married. HMMMM...quite interesting.
I'm inclined to say, without giving this a great deal of thought, that the man -a widower- who was once married, to a wife, and has his children in obedience, is qualified. But, I also would yield to a better scripture for this condition.
Again, we are discussing the democratic nomination of a Church Office as opposed to a Gift of the Spirit.
As for 'house-churches', I would ask for a distinction/defintition of a house-church as you imply. I'm not aware that God distinguished a house-church from a church. He DID declare "wherever two or three are gathered in my name...", but I'm convinced that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the formalities of a larger church.
The first few chapters, 3 of them, in Revelation are addressed to seven churches in seven cities. These are most certainly not "house-churches" (meaning a couple of people), but are churches of size recognized by God. I believe these are the type of churches discussed in scripture.
Further:
Paul makes a distinction between deacons and bishops. Both are recognized and perhaps a man could be both, but the text implies they are seperate offices and could/would be held by seperate men. A house-church, as you've implied, still leaves a 'man out'. Meaning that if what you said is true, there would still be an office available for a man at someone else's house.
Celebacy was not only a 'question', it was required to be refused by Paul for both of the men. As an Apostle (chosen by God, through faith), he was not a deacon, nor a bishop (chosen by men).
Im not much for words.
That's nice but your tradition clearly violates scripture. Jesus did not have any nice things to say about the Pharisees of his day who claimed that they were privy to tradition taught by Moses and handed down to them orally. He clearly said that their traditions were man-made and that it was wrong to place man-made traditions above scripture.Another word for scripture is canon, which means measuring rod. We need to measure our traditions as to whether they comport with scripture. Do your research and you'll find that this is what most of the early fathers taught.
The parallels between the Jews piling man-made traditions on scripture and the church (not just Catholics) is enough to take your breath away. I suggest Alfred Edersheim's massive tome The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Finally, if we pretend that enforced priestly celibacy somehow doesn't violate scripture, then why was it not practiced by the early church?
Er, but his wife had died. No wait -- he left her behind when he travelled. No, I've got it -- they stopped having marital relations because it was a naughty thing to do. Yeah, that's the ticket.The list of excuses I've seen to get around this plainly stated fact is simply amazing!
What is this DU? there is no basis in fact in this statement.
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.