Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

Our Forum Friend, TSC asks, "So Bill, are you saying that by choosing to remain celibate and unmarried the Pope is not doing the will of God as expressed by Paul when Paul said "Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor 7:1-2)"

No, Paul tells us that, if a person feels that he cannot be celibate; it is best that he be married so that he will not be tempted to immorality.

Paul is responding to a letter from the church in Corinth. Corinth was a major city of commerce and travel, known for its reputation for immorality. You might say that Corinth was the Las Vegas of that area and time. Sin and immorality were all around the believers and this had begun to seep into the church.

In 1 Corinthians 5:1, we read Paul's chastisement of the Corinthian church for allowing incest and sexual immorality into the church, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife."

This is the background of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband."

Speaking to the church at Corinth, and to all believers, in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, Paul admonishes, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘The two shall become one flesh.'"

Paul is teaching that when a person sinks into immorality with another; he/she becomes one with that other person in the immoral act. This would apply to sexual immorality with a prostitute, or fornication (sex outside marriage), or incest, or homosexuality. All are sins of immorality and equally condemned.

So, what is a believer to do? Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:17-20, tells us, "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."

And, then, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, Paul shows us what a man is to do to avoid the temptation of immorality, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband."

So, TSC, you ask if the Pope is wrong to remain celibate. No. If that is his calling and he can be faithful in it; in the teachings of the Bible, he is not wrong in choosing that for himself. He is wrong to impose that burden upon others.

Paul himself had been married. We do not know what happened to his wife; but, to have been a Jewish Rabbi and a member of the Sanhedrin; Paul had to have been married. Possibly his wife died; or possibly, when he converted to Christianity, she, wanting to remain in the Jewish religion, left him or divorced him. We do not know. But, we do know that Paul tells all who want to do the work of God in spreading the Gospel; it is better if you are not married.

Why does Paul say this? In Paul's day, and even today, when a person commits himself or herself to serving God; often it is a hindrance having a family. A person with a family has responsibilities to that family -- and often these responsibilities can conflict with doing a ministry.

So, Paul tells them that, if you are married, that is fine. If you are not married, but feel that your sexual desires might lead you into acts of immorality; it is better that you get married. But, if you do not have a problem with sexual desires being that strong and can live a celibate life -- then, it is better to do so; that you might more effectively serve the Lord.

What most of us see as wrong is the Roman Catholic church forcing all the priest and nuns, many of them young people in their sexual prime -- to take a vow of celibacy. I see two problems with this: First, it is unnatural to force people to live a life of celibacy -- and it is impossible for most to do it. It is so obvious that this is a major contributing factor to the sexual abuse problems which have come to light in recent years among the Roman Catholic priests.

I know that in some third world countries which are predominantly Roman Catholic; sexual immorality among priests is overlooked by the local parishioners. In the Philippines, many priests have been known to have a number of children. I am not sure if the situation still exists today; but, in the past, in the Philippines it was condoned for priests to have live in lovers, who bear them children. And, the local people looked the other way. After all, the priest is a man of authority and not to be questioned.

This most likely happens in many other third world countries such as South America and others. This would not happen if the priests were allowed to marry.

The second problem I see with celibate priests who have never been married: Many Catholics go to their priests for marital counseling. How in the world can a man who, supposedly, has never had a sexual relationship, has never been married -- counsel others on marriage and sexual relationships? That would be like a person who owns a Masserati coming to me, who has never even sat in a Masserati -- and asking me to tune his engine. I would most likely have trouble even finding his engine. Celibate priests have the same problem with counseling on marriage and sexual relationships.

Then, TSC, you ask, "Paul said that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is GOOD for a man to be celibate, it is GOOD for a man not to reproduce. Now why would you want to argue with The Word in the Bible?"

I believe I have pretty much covered this ground already in what I have written above. However, keep in mind that the Bible is not, nor is Paul, telling people not to marry. And, the Catholic church cannot support celibacy from Scripture either.

In his book, "Truth Encounters, Catholicism and Holy Scripture," Tony Pezzotta, who spent a large portion of his life as a Catholic priest and was head of the Catholic Seminary in the Philippines for ten years, teaching and training other priests -- then left Catholicism to work for God outside the Catholic church -- writes about Celibacy and Priesthood (pages 103, 104):

The Roman Catholic Church officially imposed celibacy on all priests in the eleventh century (AD 1079). Although many monastics practiced celibacy prior to that time, there was no law forbidding the clergy to be married. Several Popes, many bishops, and very many priests were married men.

I was taught in the seminary that several things contributed to the decision to forbid the clergy to marry: rampant immorality in Catholic families; married priests breaking the 'seal of secrecy' by telling their wives what they had heard in the confessional; and fear of losing church property to the children of priests. But, the greatest reason for the decision was a Gnostic philosophy embraced by theologians in the Middle Ages which taught that "the soul is basically good, while the flesh is fundamentally evil." This false assumption led to the conviction that sexual activity was a "necessary evil for the propagation of mankind." Since sexual activity is substantially evil, those who have been called to serve God as "His priests," to be endowed with great supernatural powers, should not be entangled with it.


In summary, TSC, the Bible does not teach celibacy. What the apostle Paul teaches us in the Bible is that we should do what makes us better followers of Christ and what helps us to better share His Gospel with the world. If being married equips a person better to serve God; then be married. If being single better equips a person to serve God, and he/she can maintain their morality in doing this; then be single. But, in all things, let Jesus Christ be the ruler of your life.

I pray that I have sufficiently answered your question. My comments are not meant to be, nor should they be construed, that I am knocking the Roman Catholic church. They have their teachings and when those teachings coincide with the teachings of the Bible; we are in agreement. Obviously, when their teaching differs from the Bible; I will stay with the Bible; as in the instance of celibacy.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Well stated. One mild semantics-based comment, however. Celibacy IS Biblical. But, as you have exhaustively documented, the scriptural basis for celibacy is that each person decides for him/herself whether to embrace celibacy. Nothing in scripture even remotely indicates that celibacy is to be imposed from outside a person's freedom to choose whether he/she shall or shall not be celibate.

Of course, those of the Catholic faith will tell you that they do not buy into the concept that scripture alone is authoritative in such matters. They believe that their church has authority, equal to that of scripture, to make creeds, dictums, and other ecclesiastical requirements binding on its clergy and other members.

An unprejudiced reading of what the New Testament has to say about church government will disclose to the honest reader that in the days of the apostles, each church was overseen by a group of senior members called elders, or bishops (these terms are used interchangeably), who were required to meet certain qualifications. One of these was that the candidate for this office was to be "the husband of one wife." Other qualifications are also specified:

1 Timothy 3:2-5 (King James Version)

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)."

A bishop also is expected, then, not only to be married, but to have demonstrated his ability to rule his own house, including his children. Those children are to be faithful:

Titus 1:6--"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."


So there you have it. The scriptures REQUIRE a bishop to be married, to have children, and to have demonstrated an ability to rule his own house well. The Catholic Shurch, which claims to be faithful to scripture, neverless has changed the scriptural criterion 180 degrees, having declared that a bishop is not to be the husband of ANY wife. Go figure.

The Catholic Church is not the only church that has failed to require its leaders to meet the scriptural qualifications cited above. Does your church have elders? Do those elders meet the above-cited qualifications? Or does your church simply ignore the office of elder and-for whatever reason, allow itself to be governed by a board of deacons, many of whom do NOT meet the test specified in the scriptures, as cited above? The office of deacon is subject to a different set of criteria, discussed in the chapters from Titus and I Timothy cited above. If a church is to follow the New Testament teaching on church organization, would it not be expected to have both elders and deacons?

The answer to these questions comes down to the matter of whether a church is committed to following scripture in the manner of organization and governance or whether, alternatively, a church just goes with the flow of tradition and history, with scripture taking the back seat.
Well les-see:

Nature designed us to procreate. Most of us procreate by having sex. Sex is perfectly natural, as innate as hunger and is a beautiful, wonderful thing between consenting adults.

I have some as much as possible.

So, yes, I would say that celibacy is bible-based. It sure as hell isn't based on anything rational.

Jesus, what kind of belief system would deny a basic human need?
Brother Bill, the scripture reference you used has been misunderstood for centuries. Paul DID NOT say that it is good for a man to not touch a woman. If you will look at the first few words of that verse you will see that Paul is answering a question from the church. In the Greek language(unlike English) capital letters are not used to start a sentence. When the first letter of a sentence is capitalized
it is because it is the first word of a direct quote from someone else. There are approximately 13 such direct quotes in the 1st letter to the Corinthian Church.

Where we make our mistakes is when we THINK that Paul is stating doctrinal answers when in actuality he is quoting the question or statement from the letter from the Church.

Take the "admonishment" of Paul for instance concerning women speaking in the church. Paul HAS NEVER tried to keep anyone "under the law". He is the greatest liberator aside from Jesus Himself, of all the Bible writers. Right after he says that women are not permitted to speak "as sayeth the law", he asks if God only speaks to the men only or does He speak to all mankind including women. Paul also states that "In Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no male no female, no bond or free."

Thanks for allowing me to share some insight on this issue.

James A. Clemmons Sr.
idamann01@earthlink.net
Also Blessed by God to be accepted in the beloved. Born again and Heaven bound
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
Well les-see:

Nature designed us to procreate. Most of us procreate by having sex. Sex is perfectly natural, as innate as hunger and is a beautiful, wonderful thing between consenting adults.

I have some as much as possible.

So, yes, I would say that celibacy is bible-based. It sure as hell isn't based on anything rational.

Jesus, what kind of belief system would deny a basic human need?


Obviously, by your "rational", comment you don't particularly care for the teachings of the Bible. This is due to mainly a GROSS misunderstanding of Scripture. Celibacy is not now nor has it ever been a doctrinal issue. God very eloquently stated "GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH". i DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT SEX.
Christ came to Earth to do the will of the Father, which was to fulfill the law (which is another lesson in,of,by,with, and for itself. Jesus came to redeem all mankind and as Paul wrote about doing the will of God and having a wife and family did not work as well as not having a wife and a family, Jesus chose serving God the Father.

Yes, Jesus is the example we should imitate. But His job was not to marry and have children it was to seek and save all that were lost. Our goal as to "being like Jesus" is to Love our God with all our heart,soul,mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
No, the bible is a very poor foundation for morality. Especially sexual morality.[/QUOTE]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The Bible teaches that we are to be the husband of ONE wife. We are not to have sex outside of our marriage. we are not covet our neighbor's wife. We are not to have sex BEFORE marriage. I think these lessons(if followed) would prove to be a great foundation on which to establish a relationship of a sexual nature. There would be a lot less sexually transmitted diseases (probably none at all) and a drastic reduction in murders committed by husbands and wives of unfaithful partners. I could go on for hours citing the benefits of following the teachings of Scripture about sexual morality.
quote:
Originally posted by T S C:
So, if God has commanded us all to go forth and multiply and He wants us to marry and have sex with our spouses and have children, then why did His son not do this as well? Christ was leading us by example. As a Christian, our goal is to be like Christ, right?


By your "reasoning," then, it would follow that NO ONE is to marry, since Jesus did not marry. THAT arrangement would not last long, nor would the human race!
quote:
The Bible teaches that we are to be the husband of ONE wife.


It also teaches that we are to be husbands to many wives and how to properly beat slaves.

Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons..."
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
The Bible teaches that we are to be the husband of ONE wife.


It also teaches that we are to be husbands to many wives and how to properly beat slaves.

Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons..."


Once more, GoFish, you--as with many others who have no depth of understanding of Biblical theology--make the fundamental error of assuming that the Old Testament remains binding upon men in the Christian era. It is not. As clearly shown in the New Testament book of Hebrews, the Old Testament covenant with Israel is superseded by a better covenant, consistent with God's plan for the redemption of mankind. This is very basic Christian theology, and you probably have no idea how shallow your post seems to those who understand this. The book of Acts (see especially chapter 15) makes it very clear that Old Testament ordinances and restrictions do not apply in the Christian era. So do yourself a favor, spare yourself the further embarrassment of posting irrelevancies like those in your current eructation!
quote:
Once more, GoFish, you--as with many others who have no depth of understanding of Biblical theology--make the fundamental error of assuming that the Old Testament remains binding upon men in the Christian era.


So do you propose to abolish the OT from Christianity? If so, you are my intellectual friend. Otherwise, your are just a picker/chooser who takes what he wants and avoids the truth.

Which is it?
I think we have strayed from the original question altogether. Is celibacy Biblical?

Celibacy is strictly a Catholic law for their priests. There is NO law in either the Old Testament or the New Testament that demands or commands one to remain celibate period.

And to try to answer another of the questions which are used primarily to throw the line of reasoning off, "are we to just throw the Old Testament away because it is out dated etc....

No, in no way are we to disregard the Old Testament. However, you have to realize that the Old Testament was strictly for the Jews. When Jesus came to Earth and do what He came here for, The Old Testament was fulfilled. We now are under Grace and not the Law, which is basicly the Old Testament. Should we keep the Ten Commandments??? Yes, but not in order to be saved but because we are saved. No one was EVER able to keep the Law (commandments) consequently no one would ever be able to enter Heaven. Now God sent His only Begotten Son to fulfill the law(the soul that sinneth shall die) and He did for all our sins past present and future. The Law was given so that mankind would be able to realize that he is a sinner and there is NOTHING that he could do about it. He needed a savior which is Christ Jesus.
Celibacy and the Priesthood

Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.

The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
So none of the people that died before they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior went to Heaven / will go to Heaven?

We are not bound by the Old Testament Laws (which include eating shrimp, shaving sideburns, having sex during a woman's period) except for the 10 Commandments. One of which says "REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY" even though Christians worship on the SIXTH and the FOURTH day, not the Seventh. Now we are supposed to keep the 10 Commandments, because we are saved, even though Christ only reiterated 5 of them.

Celibacy is not demanded in the New Testament, yet we read this:

“It is good for a man not to marry” (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this” (1 Corinthians 7: 27-28)

“He who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry he does even better (1 Corinthians 7: 38)

And we are taught that as Christians we are to strive to be Christ-like. We know that Christ was not married, and even told anyone who wanted to be his follower that they had to leave their spouse, parents, and children -

"And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."(Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30, and Matthew 19:29).


Hmmm... anyone else confused?
Hi TSC,

Yes, all the Old Testament believers are in heaven with Jesus Christ right now. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He went into Hades for three days where He proclaimed His victory to those in prison (1 Peter 3:18-19), and to bring the faithful, who were waiting in the Bosom of Abraham for Jesus to offer the perfect sacrifice necessary for all men to attain salvation, into heaven with Him (Ephesians 4:8).

The Old Testament believers will receive their glorified bodies at the same time that we, who are His church, are raised from the grave or are Raptured to meet Him in the clouds. Then, all believers, Old Testament and New Testament, and Tribulation martyrs, will be in heaven for the seven years of the Tribulation. There we will stand before Christ in the Believer's Judgment (Bema Seat) to receive our rewards or lack of rewards for the things we did in His name while on earth.

Then, there will be the Wedding Feast of the Lamb -- with His church, the body of New Testament believers, the bride.

We will return with Him (Revelation 19) when He returns in glory to establish His Millennial Kingdom on earth -- where He will rule in peace and harmony from the throne of David in Jerusalem -- for one thousand years. And, then eternity.

Regarding the subject of celibacy in the Bible; I suggest you go back and read my post which began this discussion. It is truly amazing how some will have so many questions and comments -- about a post they have not even read.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB
quote:
Originally posted by idamann: I think we have strayed from the original question altogether. Is celibacy Biblical?

Celibacy is strictly a Catholic law for their priests. There is NO law in either the Old Testament or the New Testament that demands or commands one to remain celibate period.

And to try to answer another of the questions which are used primarily to throw the line of reasoning off, "are we to just throw the Old Testament away because it is out dated etc....

No, in no way are we to disregard the Old Testament. However, you have to realize that the Old Testament was strictly for the Jews. When Jesus came to Earth and do what He came here for, The Old Testament was fulfilled. We now are under Grace and not the Law, which is basically the Old Testament. Should we keep the Ten Commandments??? Yes, but not in order to be saved but because we are saved. No one was EVER able to keep the Law (commandments) consequently no one would ever be able to enter Heaven. Now God sent His only Begotten Son to fulfill the law (the soul that sinneth shall die) and He did for all our sins past present and future. The Law was given so that mankind would be able to realize that he is a sinner and there is NOTHING that he could do about it. He needed a savior which is Christ Jesus.
Hi Idamann,

Welcome to the Forum -- even though at times it might resemble Daniel's Lions Den. But, we have the advantage of knowing that He has already won the war; victory is His -- even though the world is still blind to it. We find assurance in 1 John 4:4, "You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world."

Our atheist and other non-believing Friends remind me of the World War 2 Japanese soldiers who still lived on islands for decades after the war was over -- never knowing that their side had long ago lost the war. We just have to be patient with them; for, even in their lost state -- many of them couldl eventually be saved. Just keep planting the seeds -- and who knows what great wonders the Holy Spirit might one day work in their hearts. Can't you just picture Fish, Deep, Miami, and others coming forward to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Greater things have been done.

Once again, welcome. And, by the way -- a good post. Well said.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Dove-Flying-OliveBranch_animated
Last edited by Bill Gray
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
I remind y'all once again, the bible is as reliable a source for truth as "A Doctor's Guide to Phrenology".

DF
Hi Deep,

Gee, I am sorry. I guess you just could not come up with an intelligent response -- so you resorted to your inane comments.

Are you still taking your dementia medication?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Ape-No-No
quote:
Originally posted by T S C:
So BeternU, are you saying that NONE of the Old Testament Laws are binding on us any longer? That if it isn't in the NEW TESTAMENT that it isn't a law that Christians must follow?


I am saying that I believe what the New Testament teaches about the Old Testament, which is pretty well summarized in Galatians 3:23-25, as follows:

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The "law" refers to the portions of the Old Testament that contain ordinances, statutes and commandments. It does not refer to the various other sections, such as those portions that are only historical or poetic or prophetic. For example, the various accounts of the wars and conflicts of the Judges and those of the Kings of Israel obviously do not contain requirements of law and do not govern personal behavior. So when we consider what is, and what is not, Biblicall required of christians today, those portions are not applicable.

The law was a "schoolmaster." The word is elsewhere translated "tutor." Greek scholars advise that the term, as used in the original Greek, referred to a trusted servant, who escorted a child to and from a place of learning. The Old Testament laws and commandments were, Christians believe, part of God's eternal plan. The nation of Israel was indeed a chosen people--chosen to bring Christ into the world, but the things of the law were shadows of better things to come, and we now live under "a newer and better covenant"--see below:

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:5-7 (in Context) Hebrews 8 (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

AND, I am saying that the New Testament scriptures fully subsume all that is needed to inform the behavior of Christians under the new covenant. It is not necessary to go back to the 10 Commandments, for example. For one thing, the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day is not applicable to Christians, who observe not the Sabbath (seventh) day, but rather the "first day of the week" (See Acts 20:7). The moral precepts necessary to a godly Christian life are fully explicated in the New Testament. Church life, governance, and Christian worship are defined in the New Testament. Is there something that YOU find required of men and women today that you can not find in the New Testament and that requires you to go back to the Old Testament to obtain? If so, please explain and I will respond.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Once more, GoFish, you--as with many others who have no depth of understanding of Biblical theology--make the fundamental error of assuming that the Old Testament remains binding upon men in the Christian era.


So do you propose to abolish the OT from Christianity? If so, you are my intellectual friend. Otherwise, your are just a picker/chooser who takes what he wants and avoids the truth.

Which is it?


I will let the New Testament answer you:

Colossians 2:

10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Clearly, the ordinances, rites, and statutes of the Old Testament have been replaced by a new and better covenant in Christ. As I explained below to TSC:

<<<I am saying that I believe what the New Testament teaches about the Old Testament, which is pretty well summarized in Galatians 3:23-25, as follows:

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The "law" refers to the portions of the Old Testament that contain ordinances, statutes and commandments. It does not refer to the various other sections, such as those portions that are only historical or poetic or prophetic. For example, the various accounts of the wars and conflicts of the Judges and those of the Kings of Israel obviously do not contain requirements of law and do not govern personal behavior. So when we consider what is, and what is not, Biblicall required of christians today, those portions are not applicable.

The law was a "schoolmaster." The word is elsewhere translated "tutor." Greek scholars advise that the term, as used in the original Greek, referred to a trusted servant, who escorted a child to and from a place of learning. The Old Testament laws and commandments were, Christians believe, part of God's eternal plan. The nation of Israel was indeed a chosen people--chosen to bring Christ into the world, but the things of the law were shadows of better things to come, and we now live under "a newer and better covenant"--see below:

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:5-7 (in Context) Hebrews 8 (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

AND, I am saying that the New Testament scriptures fully subsume all that is needed to inform the behavior of Christians under the new covenant. It is not necessary to go back to the 10 Commandments, for example. For one thing, the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day is not applicable to Christians, who observe not the Sabbath (seventh) day, but rather the "first day of the week" (See Acts 20:7). The moral precepts necessary to a godly Christian life are fully explicated in the New Testament. Church life, governance, and Christian worship are defined in the New Testament.>>>

I believe that is sufficient to make you my "intellectual friend."
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Once more, GoFish, you--as with many others who have no depth of understanding of Biblical theology--make the fundamental error of assuming that the Old Testament remains binding upon men in the Christian era.


So do you propose to abolish the OT from Christianity? If so, you are my intellectual friend. Otherwise, your are just a picker/chooser who takes what he wants and avoids the truth.

Which is it?


Good point. If the OT no longer means anything then doesn't that also mean the ten commandments are null and void?
quote:
So BeternU, are you saying that NONE of the Old Testament Laws are binding on us any longer? That if it isn't in the NEW TESTAMENT that it isn't a law that Christians must follow?


That's pretty much it.

Hebrews 9:15

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

So other than the OT laws that Christ reaffirmed, we don't follow OT law. That's the whole point of Christianity. The OT is the history of Jesus, containing prophesy, His lineage, and the history of His people. The NT is a collection of eyewitness accounts, His teachings, and philosophies.

So all that stuff about killing your neighbor and such in Leviticus is obsolete. That was viable when strict community ties were needed for survival in a hostile land. They served their purposes, the Jews flourished, and when they weren't needed Jesus came with the new covenant.
quote:
Mr. Bill,

I hope you've been celibate all your life, or at least didn't reproduce.


That's not cool at all.

I don't agree with Bill's fundamentalist views. I don't like how he comes off as arrogant and judgmental. However, I have no ill will towards the man because he's simply doing what he thinks is right.

I know he ticks people off, sometimes he aggravates me. People are going to tease Bill for his antiquated views, I've done so myself.

However, it's no reason to make vicious personal attacks like that, it was really uncalled for. Deep, you're better than that.
quote:
I don't agree with Bill's fundamentalist views. I don't like how he comes off as arrogant and judgmental. However, I have no ill will towards the man because he's simply doing what he thinks is right.



So, by the same measure, you also approve of what Fred Phelps and his Westborro Baptist Church does with his "God Hates (gay people)" campaign at fallen soldier funerals.

After all, he is only doing what is right, right?

Bill is a colossal, towering imbecile who begs for and receives all the criticism he can get.
quote:
So, by the same measure, you also approve of what Fred Phelps and his Westborro Baptist Church does with his "God Hates (gay people)" campaign at fallen soldier funerals.

After all, he is only doing what is right, right?

Bill is a colossal, towering imbecile who begs for and receives all the criticism he can get.


No, the Phelps crowd are consumed with hatred. Bill doesn't hate you and hasn't shown any hatred. Judgmental yes, but not hate. That's the difference.

If someone said that to Deep, I would have defended him in the same way. I like that these forums for the most part are civil. It's important to keep them that way.

I agree that he should be open to criticism. So should I and so should you. Be careful to not let criticisim and anger develop into the same hatred the Phelps display. Your last sentence shows that you are walking very close to that line.

There is nothing more irrational than blind hatred.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×