“The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example.”
So, your assertion rests on the fact that there is NO evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they took up their ministry with Christ.
“It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.”
How so? There’s no evidence that they were married before their ministry. You are asserting that they were in fact married, despite the fact that Scripture is silent here. Can you not accept that if you rely on scripture only you have no means to justify yourself?
“The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc.”
Exactly. Thank you. I have been saying that since the beginning. I’m glad you’ve finally come around to my very first post in the thread. Just because Timothy says that a priest may already be a married man, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement.
“There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader.”
Timothy is talking about the eligibility of already-married men. Paul talks about how priests should be celibate. Why is Paul less authoritative in Corinthians than he is in Timothy?
“Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.”
I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?
I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?
Since when do you read “better” to equal “required”? You are totally distorting and taking things out of context, including this line from Paul.
In that same letter Paul provides the context he is talking about celibacy in.
1Co 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.I say therefore to the unmarried (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP) and widows, It is good for them IF they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better - if you can handle it. Obviously for these people who cannot, it would be better if they were married. But marriage is not a disqualifier for service to God as a church leadership position.
Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.
If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader, because we know from Scripture that statement is FALSE. Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married, and therefore, the bible would not have to specify ‘husband of one wife’ anywhere when explaining the qualifications to be a church leader because none of the church leaders, present or future, would ever possibly be married.
When you take one sentence out of context you can easily create doctrines and traditions that are not true. When you have to be forced to view things in the context they are given, and supported by other areas of Scripture, it’s a different story.