Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fogofbobegabay
(for St. Paul himself had none)

True, but I see no biblical evidence that Paul was a bishop. And your interpretation seems to fly in the face of verse 5, that suggests that one is unqualified to be a bishop unless he's demonstrated the ability to control his own kids.

43 posted on 02/23/2007 10:54:02 AM PST by Sloth (The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Sloth
True, but I see no biblical evidence that Paul was a bishop.

St. Paul was superior to bishops; he appointed them.

... one is unqualified to be a bishop unless he's demonstrated the ability to control his own kids.

So, not only are celibate men ineligible to be bishops, but married men who are childless are also ineligible? Where does that leave Jesus (unmarried, no natural children)? Where does that leave men who take the Biblical command "Imitate me as I imitate Christ" (1 Core 11:1) literally, including obeying Jesus' words in e.g., Mark 10:29 or Luke 18:29?

Historically, the verse you cite has never been interpreted to prohibit the ordination of celibate or childless men to the episcopacy. It is true that married men were ordained in the early church. (A church consisting primarily of adult converts from paganism, of course.) St. Paul is setting limits on the sort of married men who can be ordained (married only once, with Godly children if any), not prohibiting the ordination of celibate or childless men.

47 posted on 02/23/2007 11:04:39 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson