First, the Apostles and Jesus cited scripture as authoritative. When Jesus Himself argued with Satan, he quoted scripture. That, at a minimum, means a tradition cannot contradict scripture.
So if a church says Mary was taken up to heaven without tasting death, well...the scripture is silent, so believe what you want.
OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.
And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.
Not all prophecies were written down and accepted as scripture. That doesn’t make them false, but if they contradict the scriptures, THEN they are false.
Also, there is no continuing revelation to the church. Paul told the elders in Acts 20 that he taught the whole counsel of God - not part, with some hidden. And John told Christians in 2 John to “abide in the teaching of Christ”.
If you wish to add other teaching (Papal Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc), I cannot stop you. But for me, I’ll be content to abide in the whole counsel of God as taught by the Apostles.
So if a church says Mary was taken up to heaven without tasting death, well...the scripture is silent, so believe what you want.
OTOH, when a church says Mary remained a virgin forever, well...there are multiple passages that indicate otherwise. If you choose to believe it REALLY meant cousin, I cannot stop you, but I expect you to understand why I reject what you say.
And when a church rules that a bishop (elder) must be single, that contradicts scripture. Again, I cannot prevent you from believing it, but you ought to understand why I reject it and the church that makes the claim.
Not all prophecies were written down and accepted as scripture. That doesn’t make them false, but if they contradict the scriptures, THEN they are false.
Also, there is no continuing revelation to the church. Paul told the elders in Acts 20 that he taught the whole counsel of God - not part, with some hidden. And John told Christians in 2 John to “abide in the teaching of Christ”.
If you wish to add other teaching (Papal Supremacy, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc), I cannot stop you. But for me, I’ll be content to abide in the whole counsel of God as taught by the Apostles.
Excellent post!
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).