Posted on 07/07/2018 3:53:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
I had no idea, until now, that this was a thing. Weird stuff out there on teh Interwebs.
Hi! This directive from Paul (who was most definitely single at the time of writing this letter and I think in jail) applies specifically to married men as a warning against sins particular to those with wives and families - namely adultery, polygamy (common at the time) , child neglect and abuse, and failure to properly provide for and love their wives.
It is not saying ONLY married men need apply. Single and unmarried individuals have different struggles in need of addressing. And Paul addresses that in 1 Corinthians 7 while acknowledging that his own capacity for singleness is a "gift."
Paul even goes so far as to tell Timothy to stand up to people's AGE-ism:
"Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but be an example for the believers in your speech, your conduct, your love, faith, and purity." - 1 Timothy 4:12
Not all young men are married at the time they're called to serve the LORD and lead others.
I agree with that sentiment
But to say that "celibates have no credibility" is idiotic.
I would say that has nothing at all to do with fact, but only opinion...
God says celibates shouldn't even be in the clergy let alone marriage counselors...
No doubt celibates can make better, more devoted Christians but the apostle Paul was not speaking to potential clergy when he made his celibacy statement...Paul already covered the clergy issue elsewhere and was very clear that clergy must have a wife and children...
In it Cathy Newman... repeatedly tries to Cathy Newman him.
Peterson overcomes by sheer patience and reason; Newman never quite grasps what she's doing or why this isn't working as an argument.
I’ve read about this at SteynOnline, but hadn’t seen any of it. Mr. Peterson is a tidy man.
Our local library had his book. It’s full of ideas that people our age call “obvious.”
True. Right you are. And it's an idiotic opinion.
"God says celibates shouldn't even be in the clergy let alone marriage counselors..."
First, I suspect you think "celibate" means only the "never-married." It does not. It means living in the manner of an unmarried person. A celibate may be person who is a virgin, or a person divorced, or separated from their spouse, or widowed. There is no doubt that, at the time of the writing of his Epistles, Paul was celibate: he says so himself. He may indeed have been a celibate widower.
If one maintained that, on God's orders, a celibate man is unsuitable for the clergy, then a man whose wife died would be disqualified from the clerical state since, being a widower, he is now celibate. This makes no sense.
Second, God does *not* say celibates should not be in the clergy. St. Paul was celibate, and he recommends it.
Third, onre might ask, "since this is the case -- celibacy is recommended by St. Paul, who was himself celibate (probably widowed) --- then how does one understand the passage (1 Tim 3:2:12) where Paul says that bishops ought have been married but once, and ought to have shown themselves to be capable heads of their own households?
I think CondoleezzaProtege addresses this well: #246
(I'll wait a minute while you click the link and read it.)
OK, then:
First, Paul recommends those who are celibates, like himself: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs -- how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided."
Second, if it's a man who had been married, he should have been married but once, a man who has raised his children and governed his household well. (Note that this could be a widower, not a man presently married.)
"It was very clear that clergy must have a wife and children..."
That's not so. It's clear that if he were a married man, he should be one who had had but one wife, who had a good reputation because his children had been raised well, and his household ordered well.
It doesn't mean he has to be married right now, a man presently in the midst of all the many commitments of pleasing his wife, running his household, and raising a passel of kids. A widower respected in the community, having already successfully discharged these family duties in an exemplary way, would qualify.
Yeah. “Clean your room.”
Brush your teeth, wash the dishes, get a job ...
Duh.
Mac McAnally, the guitarist, said that, when he was a boy and going outside, his mother wouldn’t say, “Be good!” because she figured that was a waste of time. She would say, “Make yourself useful!”
That’s me, too. “Have a nice time! Clean something!”
I agree with you. I have seen this in my own church.
I have seen well-meaning experienced Priests struggle to counsel those with marital difficulties. At the same time we had a married Deacon who was absolutely marvelous at it.
Are there Priests who are good at it as well? No doubt, but I don’t think it’s the majority. They just lack the frame of reference.
That's not so. It's clear that if he were a married man, he should be one who had had but one wife
That's a phony fabrication of what those scriptures do not say...You are not quoting the 'word of God' when you change his scripture...Clergy must be married with a family...
Your religion had no clergy celibacy rule till about the 12th Century when it apparently was fully taken over by homosexuals and instituted this unGodly idea that clergy no longer had to have a wife...
And there have been celibate clergy, too, dating from 33AD, a practice which was very widespread for a millennium even before it became the official canonical norm in the West. If you're interested in adding to your store of knowledge on this subject, try looking into the true history of celibacy (LINK). It will contribute to your overall credibility on this interesting Catholic topic, which I know is something you aspire to.
As for the Scriptures, I adhered to them very exactly --- to the very words --- when I wrote that previous post.
There is nothing in Scripture that says all clergymen must have wives, whether before or after their ordination. None of the pericopes you quoted said that. You read in your own interpretation which is not stated in the text.
Since you don't believe in ordination to begin with, I am unable to see why you want to object to the qualifications for ordained clergy you don't even believe in, in a Church you reject.
My bishop is Rev. Richard Stika, Diocese of Knoxville. So far, you have been unwilling or unable to answer a simple question I've asked you several times: Who is your bishop?
Whoever he is, I'll pray for him. May God bless him ---and you, too.
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (Note: Greek πρεσβύτερος presbyteros) of the church.And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time,
serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews;
how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house,
solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there,
except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.
And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.
Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.
For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (Note: also translated bishops, Greek ἐπίσκοπος episkopos), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Furthermore, Paul uses the term interchangeably in Titus 1:5-9:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
I assume Paul uses the terms to distinguish between chronological elders, and those with positions of service in the church. But as for rank, I see no obvious difference.
St. Paul often insists on his authority to appoint for, send leaders to, correct, and direct the communities of new Christians which were placed under his care. Further kinds and further gradations of authority kept developing in the years and decades to come, from these indicative beginnings of diakonoi, presbyteroi, episcopoi.
Paul and the other Apostles definitely made distinctions between diakonoi and presbyteroi/episcopoi. So, from the early church as recorded in Acts and in the Pauline letters, there were two distinct offices.
At least. I would say, three.
Like I said, Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably, without gradation.
What do you see as the third permanent office?
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.