Doctrines of Demons - 1 Tim. 4:1-2

[WestminsterMan]

Before going any further, have you done a complete in depth study on the entire chapter of 1 Cor.7? Do you know the background? Do you know the reasons why Paul was saying things that seemingly contradict what he had said previously on marriage?

I have done an in-depth study; yet I come to a different understanding than you. Hmmm...

You need to find those things out. Context goes a long way before making foolish statements.

Deemed foolish by who - you? When someone challenges your position you always shout CONTEXT! and then go about pontificating nothing but your personal (and fallible) interpretation. Right...

First stop here. How many are capable of it. Did you read the first few verses of the chapter? Why does Paul say at the beginning of the chapter:

"Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife.
So Paul really didn't endorse it, did he? Scripture out of context is not wise.

Context:
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. (1 Corinthians 7:7)
--This was Paul's desire, not God's will. He states it as such. But you have deliberately misconstrued what he has said by omitting verse seven and thus taking verses 8 and 9 out of context.

Fine - then let's contextualize it shall we? Keep reading!

"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" (Corinthians7:27-34).

So here is the context DHK... Those who wish to devote themselves totally to God (or those who are anxious about the affairs of the Lord) cannot do so as easily as those who are celebate - male or female. It couldn't be clearer.

How you twist the Scriptures.

And oh how anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you must endure a deluge of petty accusations peppered with sophomoric insults. Very classy there DHK...Where did you learn your people skills - in a Mexican jail?

God's will from the beginning of creation is for every man to have his own wife. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. Let every man have his own wife, he says. Marriage is a beautiful relationship likened unto the church as the bride of Christ described in Ephesians chapter five which Paul also wrote. Is Paul a schizophrenic? No, but you don't understand what he is saying and the context in which he is writing.

snip...

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1 Corinthians 7:28)

--Obviously marriage is not sin; it is God's will.

I didn't say that marriage was a sin. I said that celibacy is acceptable and highly lauded for those to whom the gift is given.

If this is your view on marriage I feel very sorry for you and for your wife if you have one. If you are single, I advise you to remain single until you can sort these things out.

I neither want nor need advice from a complete stranger about my marital status. Further, these types of comments have no place in the realm of intellectual discourse. Your behavior may be the norm at Podunk U, but not at most rigorous institutions of higher learning.

Marriage is God's will, but if you do not marry in these circumstances you will do better to avoid heartache. You have misunderstood the entire passage.

So you say. However, there is nothing in those passages that would lead a non-agenda driven reader to any of those fallacious conclusions.

Please not the context again:
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Matthew 19:10)

Jesus was clearing up the statements he had made on divorce and remarriage.

Baloney! Here is what Jesus said - deal with it.

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted [a gift]. 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). [Emphasis mine]

For a church to advocate celibacy as the norm, as does the RCC for their clergy, it is a doctrine of demons.

I'm not defending the RCC - only pointing out, to your obvious dismay that Jesus Himself said: "...some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom."

Prance around it all you wish but you cannot deny the meaning of His very words.

Peace!
WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Celibacy is not completely condemned in scripture - for SOME, it is lauded.

You have changed the subject. DHK said nothing about celibacy being "condemned." DHK said those "FORBIDDING" marriage are condemned by 1 Tim. 4:1-3 passage.

Certainly the 1 Corinthians 7 text permits celebacy for those who are suited for it and wish to be that way but DHK is not talkinga about the 1 Cor. 7 text but about 1 Tim. 4:1-5. But 1 Tim. 4:1-3 is talking about those "FORBIDDING" marriage.

 

[DHK]

Fine - then let's contextualize it shall we? Keep reading!

"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" (Corinthians7:27-34).

That is not the context so to speak. It is the conclusion. That which puts these passages into context is near the beginning of the chapter. For example:
"To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife." That is context. Paul lays down the groundwork there, in verses 1-5.
Then in verse 6 he gives some advice that is very specific to the Corinthian church. We know this from how verse six is worded:

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Corinthians 7:6)
--These are his views, given by permission of the Holy Spirit, but not by the command of God. It is so worded because it has to do with a specific situation that arose in the church of Corinth, and thus the advice given here seems to go against the norm of that which is written elsewhere on matters concerning marriage.
This is context. It is found at the beginning of the chapter, not the end.

So here is the context DHK... Those who wish to devote themselves totally to God (or those who are anxious about the affairs of the Lord) cannot do so as easily as those who are celebate - male or female. It couldn't be clearer.

This is your conclusion from Paul's conclusion of vs.27-34 at the end of the chapter. When you jump to the end without regarding the beginning, of course you have a different conclusion other than what Paul really had in mind.

I didn't say that marriage was a sin. I said that celibacy is acceptable and highly lauded for those to whom the gift is given.

The fact is that Jesus said that it was given to very, very, few.
The second fact here is that Paul is giving this advice "by permission," for it entails special circumstances that we in our western civilization do not live under. I do not say that it does not apply to us. I am saying that those circumstances, that historical context must be taken into consideration in the interpretation of these verses. It is part of what is called good hermeneutics.

So you say. However, there is nothing in those passages that would lead a non-agenda driven reader to any of those fallacious conclusions.

I gave you Scripture. Do you just ignore it?

Previously you quoted vs. 27-34. Why omit verse 26 which also helps with the context of that passage?

I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. (1 Corinthians 7:26)
--What was "the present distress"? It was the persecution that the church at Corinth was facing. You ignore this fact, and no doubt don't understand it, can't relate to it, or sympathize with it. If you are a woman about to be engaged to a man who is about to be shipped off to war (the kind of war they fought in those days where only a small percentage returned alive), would it not be better not to marry then to have married and then face even greater hardship later?

Baloney! Here is what Jesus said - deal with it.

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted [a gift]. 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). [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that is part of what Jesus said, not all of what he said, as I pointed out to you. You left out some verses from before verse 11, which again provides context as to why he said the things he said. Even so he points out to the fact that there are very few that can accept this. It is very few if you cross reference this passage with others.

I'm not defending the RCC - only pointing out, to your obvious dismay that Jesus Himself said: "...some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom."

Prance around it all you wish but you cannot deny the meaning of His very words.
Peace!
WM

As various contexts show single people can and do serve the Lord. There are single female and male missionaries all over this world. Others serve the Lord without being married. I don't deny that and never have. But they are in a minority. It is not the perfect will of God; but rather the permissive will of God.

Consider the very qualifications of both bishop (pastor) and deacon.
Both are to be the husbands of one wife--inferring married.
Both are to have their children in subjection--inferring marriage.
They are to have their houses in order.

These qualifications assume that the leadership in churches is by married men. If a man is single it ought to be an exception, a rare exception. It is not the norm.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The fact is that Jesus said that it was given to very, very, few.

snip...

Yes, that is part of what Jesus said, not all of what he said, as I pointed out to you. You left out some verses from before verse 11, which again provides context as to why he said the things he said. Even so he points out to the fact that there are very few that can accept this. It is very few if you cross reference this passage with others.

snip...

As various contexts show single people can and do serve the Lord. There are single female and male missionaries all over this world. Others serve the Lord without being married. I don't deny that and never have. But they are in a minority.

Well, how do you know what number represents the few or the minority? Ultimately, this point is moot anyway because Jesus did state unequivically that celebacy is a gift for some. Thus in this context, celebacy cannot always be considered a "doctrine of demons" and that is precisely my point.

It is not the perfect will of God; but rather the permissive will of God.

Consider the very qualifications of both bishop (pastor) and deacon.
Both are to be the husbands of one wife--inferring married.
Both are to have their children in subjection--inferring marriage.
They are to have their houses in order.

These qualifications assume that the leadership in churches is by married men. If a man is single it ought to be an exception, a rare exception. It is not the norm.

Well, if your church wants to set it up that way - fine. The Orthodox Catholic preists can marry if they choose. Some do and others do not. While the RCC requires celebacy for its preists, they make exceptions for Anglicans comming back into the church. There may be other situations of which I am unaware.

My larger point is that we shouldn’t go around placing generalities on the intentions of others who choose another path in service to God - especially when there is scriptural precedence in support of it.

Peace!
WM

 

[DHK]

My larger point is that we shouldn’t go around placing generalities on the intentions of others who choose another path in service to God - especially when there is scriptural precedence in support of it.

Peace!
WM

There is no Scriptural precedent for any religious denomination or organization setting a standard of celibacy for their leadership or for their workers, or for any of their members. Such a practice is clearly called "a doctrine of demons." That is the teaching of 1Tim.4:1-4.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Forbidding to marry (celibacy) as taught by a church (this is a pastoral epistle), is an example of a doctrine of demons or devils.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Forbidding to marry (celibacy) as taught by a church (this is a pastoral epistle), is an example of a doctrine of demons or devils.

But it doesn't say that does it? It doesn't say that if celibacy is taught by a church or institution that THIS is a doctrine of devils. Further, (using your earlier example) if the metric is that a church or organization FORBIDS priests/religious to marry, then that would exclude the RCC. They don't forbid anyone to marry - people are not FORCED to accept celibacy just as they are not forced to become priests or religious. They accept it by choice - if you don't want to accept celibacy then don't become an RCC priest or nun. Alternately, if one feels called to the priesthood but wants marriage, then one can always go the Orthodox route.

You might also consider that down through church history there were groups of ascetics who actually held that sex and marriage were sinful, such as the Manichaeans and the Cathari. I think these groups were labeled as heritics for their beliefs.

Peace!
WM

 

[DHK]

But it doesn't say that does it? It doesn't say that if celibacy is taught by a church or institution that THIS is a doctrine of devils. Further, (using your earlier example) if the metric is that a church or organization FORBIDS priests/religious to marry, then that would exclude the RCC. They don't forbid anyone to marry - people are not FORCED to accept celibacy just as they are not forced to become priests or religious. They accept it by choice - if you don't want to accept celibacy then don't become an RCC priest or nun. Alternately, if one feels called to the priesthood but wants marriage, then one can always go the Orthodox route.

It does say as much. Consider the epistle. It is Paul writing to Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus, writing with the purpose in mind to keep things in order in the church. It is a pastoral epistle. Thus in context,

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1)

Paul believed that even then he was in the last days. Some would depart from the faith...and would give heed to doctrines of demons. Some is who? They are false teachers with their followers. That is, they are sects, cults, groups of people pretending to be believers. Perhaps some of them were believers but now were being swayed by false demonic doctrine. They were churches, but not churches standing on Biblical doctrine.

Paul writes to Timothy concerning these two specific doctrines of demons and then gives the antidote:

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. (1 Timothy 4:6-7)
--Keep reminding the church about these dangerous doctrines.
If you keep reminding them of these erroneous doctrines then you shall be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine.
Then, second, he is told to refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto Godliness. In summary listen to the Word of God; study it and let it be your authority. Today you can get on the internet and go to Urban myths, to fulfill the first part of that verse if you have to verify something that you have heard from "an old wife." :laugh:

You might also consider that down through church history there were groups of ascetics who actually held that sex and marriage were sinful, such as the Manichaeans and the Cathari. I think these groups were labeled as heritics for their beliefs.

Peace!
WM

There may have been. I wouldn't discount it. That doesn't let the RCC of the hook for teaching that doctrine which Paul teaches Timothy is a doctrine of demons. Those groups, sects, etc., which teach such doctrines teach doctrines of demons. No matter which way you cut it, that is what it teaches.

I was in the RCC for 20 years. My father thought that one day I would go into the priesthood. Had I done that it would have been required for me to be celibate. There is no way around that. That is a requirement of the RCC. That is a doctrine of demons. That is what the passage is emphasizing, just as other religions teach that there are certain foods you must abstain from. Both doctrines are doctrines of demons.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...
I was in the RCC for 20 years. My father thought that one day I would go into the priesthood. Had I done that it would have been required for me to be celibate."

Correct - but that would have been your choice. It is my understanding that the RCC doesn't force that decision on anyone.

There is no way around that. That is a requirement of the RCC. That is a doctrine of demons.

But they would not have been forcing you to become a priest, hence the exclusion of the forbidden clause. If Catholics forced celibacy on people there would soon be no more Catholics.

Peace!
WM

 

[DHK]

Correct - but that would have been your choice. It is my understanding that the RCC doesn't force that decision on anyone.

Catholics FORCE that decision on all that enter the priesthood. Why do you think they have so much problems now coming to the surface with sexual abuse?

But they would not have been forcing you to become a priest, hence the exclusion of the forbidden clause. If Catholics forced celibacy on people there would soon be no more Catholics.

Peace!
WM

Why? They don't force it on their membership, obviously. They force it upon all their priests. It is a requirement that their priests be celibate, and has been for centuries.

 

[BobRyan]

Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."

[/b]
"God's words to Peter."

Please quote God's words to Peter. That is what I asked you.

I am more than happy to quote the inspired words of Peter on that point. You see taking the either-or-hatchet to scripture as you are so fond of doing - is not the fix-all solution you keep imagining.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[WestminsterMan]

Catholics FORCE that decision on all that enter the priesthood. Why do you think they have so much problems now coming to the surface with sexual abuse?

Well the cause certainly isn’t celibacy - it is, however, directly related to the sin of homosexuality.

Why? They don't force it on their membership, obviously. They force it upon all their priests. It is a requirement that their priests be celibate, and has been for centuries.

It is my understanding that candidates for the RCC priesthood must discern a calling to that priesthood. Part of the discernment is whether or not they are being called to renounce marriage for the kingdom of God.

And as Jesus said:

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted [a gift]. 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). [Emphasis mine]

Others serve the Lord without being married. I don't deny that and never have. But they are in a minority.

The number of RCC priests worldwide seems to be somewhere around 400,000. With approximately 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide, I would say that the percentage of RCC priest/religious clearly falls into the area of a “minority” wouldn’t you?

God may judge these people as having lived and promoted a “doctrine of demons” – I don’t know. Personally, I doubt it. I can’t image Him taking offense with people who give up so much for His kingdom. Most priests don’t make very much money (< 25,000/year) and many take vows of poverty while devoting their entire lives to Christ. We might disagree (and most here probably do) with their theology, but how many of us are this dedicated to God? What does your Pastor make annually, and what are his benefits? Does he get a retirement plan, health insurance (US), a home, car(s), travel expenses? I can tell you that many of the pastors at churches in our area make six figure salaries plus most of the above benefits.

Peace!
WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

But it doesn't say that does it? It doesn't say that if celibacy is taught by a church or institution that THIS is a doctrine of devils. Further, (using your earlier example) if the metric is that a church or organization FORBIDS priests/religious to marry, then that would exclude the RCC. They don't forbid anyone to marry - people are not FORCED to accept celibacy just as they are not forced to become priests or religious. They accept it by choice - if you don't want to accept celibacy then don't become an RCC priest or nun. Alternately, if one feels called to the priesthood but wants marriage, then one can always go the Orthodox route.

You might also consider that down through church history there were groups of ascetics who actually held that sex and marriage were sinful, such as the Manichaeans and the Cathari. I think these groups were labeled as heritics for their beliefs.

Peace!
WM

The qualifications for a bishop are given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 right before this disputed passage in chapter 4! Please point out in 1 Timothy 3 where Paul ever required celibacy for those who desired to fill the office of bishop????

1 Tim. 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

1 Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry,

You cannot have it both ways! Either celebacy is totally the free choice of any and all believers and only a preference by some among the ministry (like Paul) or it is a qualification to fill the office of bishop and thus to freely choose the office is to freely choose the life of celibacy but it cannot be both.

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage in the ministry in chapter 3 and condemning those who forbid marriage in chapter 4 as well as disqualifying Peter, as both Paul and Matthew say that Peter had a wife:

1 Cor. 9:5 Have we not power [exousia = authority] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Mt 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

So which is it?

1. Is it permissible for the Biship to be a "HUSBAND" and therfore have "ONE WIFE" (1 Tim. 3:2) OR it is not permissible?

2. If it is not permissible than why do both Paul and Matthew say Peter had a "WIFE" (I Cor. 9:5; Mt. 8:14)?


You interpret the "desire" to fill the office of Bishop as the desire to also be celebate in direct contradiction to what Paul says about those who "desire the office of Bishop" may be the "HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE."

Who should the reader believe? You or Paul?

Paul says that he as well as other apostles have "AUTHORITY" (exousia - 1 Cor. 9:5" to lead about a "WIFE" but you say the Bible does not authorize a bishop to be married but treats the desire to be a bishop equal with the desire to be celebate? Who shall we believe? Paul or You?

 

[DHK]

I am more than happy to quote the inspired words of Peter on that point. You see taking the either-or-hatchet to scripture as you are so fond of doing - is not the fix-all solution you keep imagining.

in Christ,

Bob

You are afraid of the truth Bob, and will only quote application, such as "God has shown me."
Those are not the exact words that God gave to Peter. Those words you haven't quoted, even though they are as plain as day. They are mentioned clearly in the text. God SAID unto Peter, "......." What did he say? Why are you so reluctant to quote the exact words that God said unto Peter?

This is post #73. I have been asking this same question since post #34. Something is desperately wrong here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think the Screwtape letters cover the doctrine of demons pretty well.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think the Screwtape letters cover the doctrine of demons pretty well.

I have never read the screw tape letters. I have intended to do so for many years but just never got around to it because of other reading. Since this is your comparison to this text, would you mind telling me exactly how this text relates to that book?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have never read the screw tape letters. I have intended to do so for many years but just never got around to it because of other reading. Since this is your comparison to this text, would you mind telling me exactly how this text relates to that book?

It doesn't really. I was kidding. Unless there is one particular letter... Don't really know. However, the screwtape letters were writen during WWII as saterical articles in the Guardian. The compilation of these articles became CS Lewis book Screwtape letters. However, since its a letter from a subordinate demon named Wormwood to his Uncle Screwtape, a greater demon, on how to tempt and disrupt the Christian in their life. I thought it would be funny to comment on.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It doesn't really. I was kidding. Unless there is one particular letter... Don't really know. However, the screwtape letters were writen during WWII as saterical articles in the Guardian. The compilation of these articles became CS Lewis book Screwtape letters. However, since its a letter from a subordinate demon named Wormwood to his Uncle Screwtape, a greater demon, on how to tempt and disrupt the Christian in their life. I thought it would be funny to comment on.

My daughter read it in college. I guess I will have to get her copy and read it.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The qualifications for a bishop are given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 right before this disputed passage in chapter 4! Please point out in 1 Timothy 3 where Paul ever required celibacy for those who desired to fill the office of bishop????
1 Tim. 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

1 Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry,

You cannot have it both ways! Either celebacy is totally the free choice of any and all believers and only a preference by some among the ministry (like Paul) or it is a qualification to fill the office of bishop and thus to freely choose the office is to freely choose the life of celibacy but it cannot be both.

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage in the ministry in chapter 3 and condemning those who forbid marriage in chapter 4 as well as disqualifying Peter, as both Paul and Matthew say that Peter had a wife.

1 Cor. 9:5 Have we not power [exousia = authority] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Mt 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

So which is it?
1. Is it permissible for the Biship to be a "HUSBAND" and therfore have "ONE WIFE" (1 Tim. 3:2) OR it is not permissible?

2. If it is not permissible than why do both Paul and Matthew say Peter had a "WIFE" (I Cor. 9:5; Mt. 8:14)?

You interpret the "desire" to fill the office of Bishop as the desire to also be celebate in direct contradiction to what Paul says about those who "desire the office of Bishop" may be the "HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE."

Who should the reader believe? You or Paul?

Look - your interpretation 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 your 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! This is nothing more than puritanical excessive literalism and must be rejected by any thinking reader.

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. Ridiculous!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

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 truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

What we have here in the good doc's interpretation is a clear case of Reductio ad absurdum.

Peace!
WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look - your interpretation 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.

Either celebacy is totally the free choice of any and all believers and only a preference by some among the ministry - DW

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage - DW

Paul says that he as well as other apostles have "AUTHORITY" (exousia - 1 Cor. 9:5" to lead about a "WIFE" - DW

It leads to absurdities because you CHANGED my words to fit your heresy! I NEVER said the bishop "MUST be married" (those words are Paul's not mine and my intepretation of those words are exactly as yours). What I said is the qualifications "AUTHORIZE" the "PREFERENCE" of marriage in the ministry. Don't change my words to suit yourself! Every argument that you present below is based upon this twisting of my words to say something I never said. Your foundation is false therefore your conclusions are false.

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).

That is correct! That has been my interpretation FOR OVER 30 years and I have not changed it. You have changed my words to suit your fancy. However, your admission here condemns your position as you admit that bishops are permitted to marry and therefore celibacy is not required OR inseparable from the desire to be a bishop OR assumed to be included with that office!

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about! First you admit that where the Bible speaks specifically about the QUALIFICATIONS for those who DESIRE the office of Bishop that MARRIAGE with CHILDREN is entirely permissible for those who hold that office! Then you interpret Christ to directly contradict Paul! Christ said nothing different than Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7 and both permit marriage within the office of Bishop. Both Christ and Paul agree that some are GIVEN the disposition to remain single and both agree that others ARE NOT but neverless are suitable for the ministry IN MARRIAGE and WITH CHILDREN!

What is absurd is your willful twisting of both my words and the words of Paul and Christ! That is what is absurd!

 

[luke1616]

"Doctrines of Demons" = Psychology, the man made science dealing with the soul that has zero Jesus in it.