Bible alone?

[winsome]

Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.

Where do you get that from?

overseer = elder or bishop.. depends on which translation you use.

1 Timothy 3

Qualifications for Overseers

 1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Pretty clear to me..

And like I said before.. Catholic Priests fall in line more with temple priests for Artimis then they do for elders/deacon or apostles.

It's hard to examine the way a celibate priest manages his family and children to determine their qualifications for elder if they have none..

It's not more than one wife, not must have a wife. Paul was not imposing marriage as a qualification. Paul himself wasn't married and there is no indication that Timothy or Titus were either.

[Tantor]

Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.

Where do you get that from?

overseer = elder or bishop.. depends on which translation you use.

1 Timothy 3

Qualifications for Overseers

 1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Pretty clear to me..

And like I said before.. Catholic Priests fall in line more with temple priests for Artimis then they do for elders/deacon or apostles.

It's hard to examine the way a celibate priest manages his family and children to determine their qualifications for elder if they have none..

It's not more than one wife, not must have a wife. Paul was not imposing marriage as a qualification. Paul himself wasn't married and there is no indication that Timothy or Titus were either.

Then how do you examine the way they raise their families as a requirement of eldership?

Sounds like you just want to take the non-biblical easy way out when choosing bishops..

[winsome]

Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

But why are there no more such guardians of the Truth in the RCC, since all these passages describe married men?

Paul wasn't married. But what is your point anyway? Celibacy is a practice of Latin Rite Catholics. many Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (but not Bishops). It is not a doctrinal issue.

It actually is.. because elders are to be married.

Where do you get that from?

overseer = elder or bishop.. depends on which translation you use.

1 Timothy 3

Qualifications for Overseers

 1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Pretty clear to me..

And like I said before.. Catholic Priests fall in line more with temple priests for Artimis then they do for elders/deacon or apostles.

It's hard to examine the way a celibate priest manages his family and children to determine their qualifications for elder if they have none..

It's not more than one wife, not must have a wife. Paul was not imposing marriage as a qualification. Paul himself wasn't married and there is no indication that Timothy or Titus were either.

Then how do you examine the way they raise their families as a requirement of eldership?

Sounds like you just want to take the non-biblical easy way out when choosing bishops..

You don't need to examine their families if they don't have one. Are you now suggesting that they both have to be married and have a family?

There is nothing biblical about your suggestion.

[Tantor]

You don't need to examine their families if they don't have one. Are you now suggesting that they both have to be married and have a family?

There is nothing biblical about your suggestion.

The bible would seem to differ with you.

The qualifications are to have but one wife and to be able to examine their family for how they raise their families will reflect how they act as elders.

If you cannot examine their families then you cannot determine if they are qualified for eldership or not.. plain and simple.

[winsome]

You don't need to examine their families if they don't have one. Are you now suggesting that they both have to be married and have a family?

There is nothing biblical about your suggestion.

The bible would seem to differ with you.

The qualifications are to have but one wife and to be able to examine their family for how they raise their families will reflect how they act as elders.

If you cannot examine their families then you cannot determine if they are qualified for eldership or not.. plain and simple.

That’s simply nonsense. Paul is making the point that they should not have been married more than once.

Paul himself says that he thinks it better for men not to be married so that they can give their time fully to the Lord.
“I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.  But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.” (1 Cor 7:33)

He makes the same point about being married only once about widows (1Tim 5:9) who by definition are not married.

[EDWARDJL]

These post show the ignorance of most Protestants when it comes to history and philosophy.

The original post was the "Bible Alone" or "Sola Scriptura".  Why have we diverted so far? Whether Popes were married or not has no bearing on the original subject. This is what Bill Clinton and many politicians do.

They can not defend their position, so they try to smear the opponent and discredit them.  The Bible itself makes the case that the LORD taught more than what it only in the Bible. Although everything in the Bible is profitable and divinely inspired.



 

[normfromga]

These post show the ignorance of most Protestants when it comes to history and philosophy.

The original post was the "Bible Alone" or "Sola Scriptura".  Why have we diverted so far? Whether Popes were married or not has no bearing on the original subject. This is what Bill Clinton and many politicians do.

They can not defend their position, so they try to smear the opponent and discredit them.  The Bible itself makes the case that the LORD taught more than what it only in the Bible. Although everything in the Bible is profitable and divinely inspired.
 

No this is not history or philosophy, but logic or forensics.

Winsome defends oral traditions of the RCC by claiming Paul had told us who were the people who are to be entrusted with his teaching:   Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
Yet using the very verses he cites, the RCC hierarchy does not have such people qualified to be entrusted with the truth.

The fact that Paul, and probably Timothy and Titus, were not married is irrelevant to Winsome's argument.   Paul was an apostle, while Timothy and Titus were preachers; they did not claim to be bishops, presbyters or deacons.

The followup argument that Paul meant such people should actually be divorced or widowed would still disqualify the majority of RCC clergy.

Yet, Winsome uses these arguments to support the use of oral traditions as a valid alternative to Sola Scriptura, without explaining how it could apply to the RCC.

[winsome]

These post show the ignorance of most Protestants when it comes to history and philosophy.

The original post was the "Bible Alone" or "Sola Scriptura".  Why have we diverted so far? Whether Popes were married or not has no bearing on the original subject. This is what Bill Clinton and many politicians do.

They can not defend their position, so they try to smear the opponent and discredit them.  The Bible itself makes the case that the LORD taught more than what it only in the Bible. Although everything in the Bible is profitable and divinely inspired.
 

No this is not history or philosophy, but logic or forensics.

Winsome defends oral traditions of the RCC by claiming Paul had told us who were the people who are to be entrusted with his teaching:   Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
Yet using the very verses he cites, the RCC hierarchy does not have such people qualified to be entrusted with the truth.

The fact that Paul, and probably Timothy and Titus, were not married is irrelevant to Winsome's argument.   Paul was an apostle, while Timothy and Titus were preachers; they did not claim to be bishops, presbyters or deacons.

The followup argument that Paul meant such people should actually be divorced or widowed would still disqualify the majority of RCC clergy.

Yet, Winsome uses these arguments to support the use of oral traditions as a valid alternative to Sola Scriptura, without explaining how it could apply to the RCC.

Timothy and Titus were much more than just preachers. Timothy was put in charge of the church at Ephesus (see 1 Tim 1) and was ordained personally by Paul (see 2 Tim 1). Titus was appointed in charge of the churches in Crete. A mere preacher does not have the authority to ordain bishops and priests. .

[normfromga]

A mere preacher does not have the authority to ordain bishops and priests.

Perhaps it is not common today, except possibly in missionary fields, where there is no large pool of lifelong believers from which to create a local leadership. 

But to say flatly that it is never done today in the RCC does not bode well for its claim to being the same church spoke of in the bible.

Also, if you are claiming priest = presbyter, you are only reconfronting the biblical qualification issue.

[banished]

normfromga,

Rome is a long way from the backwoods of Georgia, so I can't help but wonder how you are getting all this inside information?

[normfromga]

normfromga,

Rome is a long way from the backwoods of Georgia, so I can't help but wonder how you are getting all this inside information?

Rome, Georgia is our backwoods, but if you want all this inside information, check inside your  Bible.

[desertknight]

normfromga,

Rome is a long way from the backwoods of Georgia, so I can't help but wonder how you are getting all this inside information?

Rome, Georgia is our backwoods, but if you want all this inside information, check inside your  Bible.

 

[banished]

normfromga,

Rome is a long way from the backwoods of Georgia, so I can't help but wonder how you are getting all this inside information?

Rome, Georgia is our backwoods, but if you want all this inside information, check inside your  Bible.

That was a good answer.  I'm proud of you.  God bless!

[mclees8]

The written word is very important. We will all be judged by it whether we were true to it or if we were not. We cannot leave Gods word to just men.  We can  see what man does. When it is all said and done the written word will be our indictment in the day of judgment.   

In the temptation in the wilderness. Satan tried to tripe Jesus up with what was written but Jesus also overcame Satan with the very word saying it is also written. Don't listen to every wind of doctrine and teaching. You better know fully what Gods word says. You say its not bible only. No it isn't but is a life that is transformed by it.
God bless

[winsome]

The written word is very important. We will all be judged by it whether we were true to it or if we were not.

We will be judged on the life we have lived and whether we followed Christ or ourselves.

Someone said to a Catholic with whom they were having a discussion “After all we both worship the same God”. “Yes”, said the Catholic, “you in your way and I in His way”.

And that’s the difference. Protestants want to do it their way not God’s way.

We cannot leave Gods word to just men.  We can  see what man does. When it is all said and done the written word will be our indictment in the day of judgment. 

We should leave interpretation of God’s word to the Church that he left it to and promised to lead into all truth. But Protestants, mere men (and women), believe they don’t need Christ’s Church, they can set up their own. 

Yes we can see what man does with God’s word – 30,000 protestant denominations.