Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7).There is no continuing revelation in the church as you correctly point out.
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Then we have "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Finally, Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). does not imply that marriage is a MUST because it leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify. In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry!
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The logic of man vs. the logic of God...
IF the Bishop's wife and children die, the Bishop still has the life experience of a family...That's the point Paul makes...You can not minister to families if you've never had a family of your own, AND, you must show that you were successful at having a family...
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
NO...The point of God's requirement is just exactly what it says...If God wanted it to say what you claim it means, God would have written it that way...
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You know I’ll disagree with parts, but I’m not trying to convert you. Not over the Internet, at least! But on the flip side, I’d like Catholics to understand why I could not, in good conscience, be a Catholic...
“3. Must be single does not contradict scripture”
Yes and no. I’m a bit of an oddball in that I believe Paul wrote as an adult, which means he used hyperbole and sometimes made blanket statements that were not meant to be applied 100% and without sense.
However, there isn’t much doubt from scripture that the NORMAL state, and a permissible one, is for a deacon or elder to have a family. Exceptions were always possible, but they were exceptions to the normal. So when Paul wrote:
“...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. 7For 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, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
he wasn’t saying that a Bishop must be married, must have children, etc. And here we get into a difference between a hierarchical church and a congregational model like Baptists - in the Baptist congregation where I’m a member, we only have about 50 folks. EVERYONE knows each others foibles and faults, and yet we need leadership as well. And it is hard to lead if everyone knows you drink too much too frequently and your kids are hoodlums!
But while marriage and kids are not an absolute requirement, they remain the norm - in scripture. In the Catholic Church, it is by far the exception. Maybe not 100% are single, but pretty close - and that contradicts the ‘normal state’ shown in scripture.
Does it make Catholics evil, or heathen monsters? Of course not - but it DOES require placing more emphasis on tradition than scripture, and I cannot go there.
As another example, baby baptism - we have no examples of it in scripture, and the description of a Christian always involves the decision to believe. The more Calvinist brethren say we don’t have a choice in our choice, but again, I apply the norm of scripture - there is an occasional John the Baptist, but the norm is the Philippian Jailer: “”Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.”
God neither needs nor desires my permission to save someone, and He may reverse the order at times by His will, but the norm in scripture is that baptism follows belief, and it follows “at once”. I confess that most Baptists refuse to baptize right away, but I don’t understand why. And while I don’t believe baptism by water is required for regeneration, if baptism (and quickly!) was good enough for Jesus, Peter and Paul, then who am I to change it?
Purgatory and Indulgences are simply bizarre. The idea that Jesus saves, but that he’ll need to have us burn in Purgatory for some extended time to complete the process is a concept so utterly foreign to scripture that it boggles the mind. And the idea that giving money to charity or some other good work can shorten that time for someone else goes beyond mind-boggling!
Now I’ll admit, my mind boggles easier than most. Small objects are more likely to be tossed by a wave...but again, my main concern is to explain why I am not a Catholic and am a Baptist, rather than trying to compel someone else to leave the Catholic Church and become a Baptist. Not that I would object to the latter (my brother-in-law did it), but as I age, I become more aware of my limitations, and how little my limitations affect God.
In the early church, there was a great controversy over eating meat from idol sacrifices. We tend to poo-poo it, but it didn’t show up in multiple letters without being a serious and passionate debate in the church. So when Paul wrote:
“1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
I think he meant it, and that it applies to many other theological arguments we have. Of course, one can go too far, and a denial that Jesus is God, or to make Him one of many Gods like the Mormons, is a denial of the Gospel itself. And if someone says you must do enough good deeds to win God’s approval (that was my parents’ view - God as Celestial Scorekeeper), then they deny the Gospel and God.
But when we argue over Mary’s perpetual virginity? I cannot believe we please God or glorify Him when we debate such things ad nauseum.