• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is Celibacy REALLY a valid choice?

a) I don't see it as being a gift of the spirit to be sought after.
Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 12:11 says the Spirit administers the gifts as he wills. So even if a gift of celibacy is not to be sought after, if God gives it by his sovereign will, like Paul must have received it as he said he had such a gift, then would that not then make it a valid and good state for that person to walk in so long as the gift remains in him or her? If as James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (1:16) would this gift of celibacy not also be good for the one it was given unto?

*** Be awfully sure that it WAS God who did it, and,
Click to expand...

Yep, that makes sense and would align with the "walk in step with the Spirit" doctrine. I agree that is indeed critical and important!

nor assume that an adult who finds themselves in a single state due to death, divorce, or perhaps some trauma giving them problems (such as having been raped), is automatically being "called" to this state, or given a spiritual gift for it, or that God has declared Himself the only husband they need. In nearly all cases, they're just in between and need to be encouraged and helped to get into a good marriage.
Click to expand...

So the words "nearly in all cases" would then allow for some not to be in the common norms and to still be right with the Lord, correct?

I would agree we should not speak for God to someone and say to them who are in those circumstances God has called you to that. How can someone else know for sure if God has or has not given the gift? I don't think a person would be able to say such a thing with absolute confidence.

Also, it is those types of comments that make me think you've seen people say that to others, and thus those who said that to others you have seen the problem with it where it has likely injured others and that has led you to a strong emotional view against the idea of celibacy. That is where I see the possible emotional reaction bleeding through as it seems which could likely be causing your comments to go further in the anti-celibacy direction than what you may even notice.

Paul? He made quite a point of making sure that we knew he was NOT speaking for God when he said that he wished we could all be like himself, did he not? I find that significant.
Click to expand...

How would we square that thought with the statement by Paul that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)? Would it not be that he was indeed speaking for God through inspired revelation yet he was saying by that he did not have an already existing statement from Matthew's gospel or from any of the other gospels that were already available or from Christ himself?

In other words how can we affirm the law of non-contradiction, which in one sentence is: "all Scripture including this statement by Paul is from God", and yet then in another statement say, "Paul was not speaking for God here"? Would that not be us saying "A" is but also "A" is not at the same time, and thus place us squarely in violation of the most basic law of all logical discourse?

Would it not be better to say he was referring to the Lord Jesus' teaching since he used the specific term "kurios" in 1 Cor. 7:12 there instead of the term "theos" for God the Father? Would that not alleviate the issue and still then place Paul's words on a solid footing with it being an inspired revelation from God , and thus in line with 2 Tim. 3:16, but just not a direct verbal teaching from Christ while he was on earth or while he was directly instructing Paul during his three year preparation period after conversion?
 
I forgot about 2 Peter 1:21 too. Would that one not also show that Paul was moved along by the Holy Spirit and speaking for God (theos) even in 1 Corinthians?
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
In other words how can we affirm the law of non-contradiction, which in one sentence is: "all Scripture including this statement by Paul is from God", and yet then in another statement say, "Paul was not speaking for God here"? Would that not be us saying "A" is but also "A" is not at the same time, and thus place us squarely in violation of the most basic law of all logical discourse?

Would it not be better to say he was referring to the Lord Jesus' teaching since he used the specific term "kurios" in 1 Cor. 7:12 there instead of the term "theos" for God the Father? Would that not alleviate the issue and still then place Paul's words on a solid footing with it being an inspired revelation from God , and thus in line with 2 Tim. 3:16, but just not a direct verbal teaching from Christ while he was on earth or while he was directly instructing Paul during his three year preparation period after conversion?
Click to expand...

Dude! You still working on trying to justify this? *sigh* Ok ... *grin*

Paul and Peter considered Scripture to be what WE call the "Old Testament. Torah and the Prophets. They were just writing letters and advice to the churches, etc. We LATER arrived at the conclusion that their writings constituted Scripture as well.

Second, Jesus was the Word. By Him was everything made that was made. It was HE who spoke at creation and set the principle into natural law that it isn't good for mankind to be alone. It was He who inspired David to write, "God puts the solitary into families." We belong in marriages. And while exceptions may be necessary from time to time, they are not His ideal for us! Monogamy is marriage. Polygamy is marriage. Celibacy is not!

Third, when Paul SAYS, "This is ME talking, not a message from God," I'm just simple and naive enough to believe him. Don't feel any need to scholarize my way past that. And I certainly don't grant Paul the right to supersede God's own words.

So your non-contradiction principle would have to work like this: If Jesus-God pronounced it Himself, making it into God-breathed natural law at creation, then that is what it is. "A is A", in Aristotelian philosophy and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Since God may change forms as circumstances change, but never His character, or nature, or moral or natural law (It was perfect in the first place, so can't be improved.), all His utterances later in scripture should be considered in that light.

Divorce is ALLOWED. Maybe even necessary at times. But it is never on an equal footing of desirability as remaining married through thick and thin. God uttered, "A man SHALL ... Cleave together. Become one flesh." Jesus' comments have to be interpreted in that light, as He meant them to be.

(Btw, the term "SHALL" has specific legal implications, does it not? It is directive with no wiggle room. Years ago I had a hearing over a 1 year suspension of my driver's license due to an uninsured accident. Was told that the law's language said "shall". Not "should" or "may". And that therefore the official had no room for discretion. It was a looooong year!)

And so do His and Paul's statements on the single life. Interpret them in light of the Perfection already God-breathed. As improving on our understanding, perhaps, but not as improving upon perfection already stated. Celibacy is ALLOWED. Maybe even necessary at times. But never on an equal footing of desirability with marriage.

And certainly not among the Gifts of the Spirit: "Ok, let's see! Line up and I'll go right down the line. You get Tongues. You get interpretations. You get discernment. You get prophecy. You get healings. You get the working of miracles. And you get celibacy." Hunh?

However, to interpret as I suggest, my friend, will also run you smack dab up against the claims of the 4th commandment once again. God breathed. Both at creation and on Sanai. Didn't point forward to a future event which could be fulfilled, but back in remembrance of a past event and thus can never be "fulfilled". Never has changed. And THAT might be too big a jump to make just now.

Sorry, my friend, but I have to say one more thing ... The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day were the most well educated scholarly men of their time. They knew all sorts of "authorities" to quote in defense of their complicated erroneous positions. Along came Jesus and said, in effect, "Keep it simple, dude! Just read the Word and accept it in its simplicity. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Scholarship is great, and I appreciate yours. But I personally can't ever accept its attempts to find a way around a simple, God-breathed, "It is NOT good..."
 
Paul and Peter considered Scripture to be what WE call the "Old Testament. Torah and the Prophets. They were just writing letters and advice to the churches, etc.We LATER arrived at the conclusion that their writings constituted Scripture as well.
Click to expand...

So let me first see if I understand what you are saying by this before asking some other questions. Are you saying that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians is not inspired (God-breathed) Revelation? Or are you saying something else? The way that reads it sounds like to me you are saying what the apostles wrote was not God-breathed revelation, like the OT was, and thus not under direct inspiration from him. In your words it sounds like it was merely "human advice" but not supernaturally inspired direct revelation from God himself. But maybe I am misunderstanding how that reads.

It looks like to me in 2 Peter 3:15-16 the apostle called the writings of Paul "Scripture" like the rest of the Scriptures and thus telling us that what Paul wrote was to be considered as inspired revelation as well. "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." In your view what would the term other imply if not the comparative idea that what Paul wrote was also to be considered as divine Scripture like the other Scriptures?

You still working on trying to justify this?
Click to expand...

Nah, :) trying to figure out your views and see how you give a reason to the views you have in light of some questions about it (1 Peter 3:15, apologia, a reason for a view held).
 
And certainly not among the Gifts of the Spirit: "Ok, let's see! Line up and I'll go right down the line. You get Tongues. You get interpretations. You get discernment. You get prophecy. You get healings. You get the working of miracles. And you get celibacy." Hunh?
Click to expand...

What I am trying to figure out here is what then did Paul mean when he used the specific term "his own gift from the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:7)? What would Paul's words "gift from the Lord" mean if not a spiritual gift of singleness? The way it looks to me when Paul listed the gifts he did not always lump each and every gift together. In some places he spoke of some gifts but not others and then in other places would speak of the others but not another set. If that is true then is it not possible to see the term here and reference by context as a gift of singleness given to some by the Lord?

Your thoughts?
 
It can be as easily argued that "a gift from God" is a prudent wife. Pr 19:14.

Regardless, his comments read "I say this as a concession, not a commandment", "I wish", "I say", "I say", "It is better". Do you seriously expect me to accept the idea that these trump God speaking at creation? Come ON! You gotta be kidding!

Verses 10 and 11 he clearly says are God commands. But in verse 12 he's back to specifying that he's giving the best advice he can, but it is NOT God-command.

Now either he had Alzheimer's and didn't really know what he was saying as he spouted contradictory but nonetheless inspired nonsense, or he knew exactly what he was saying, and was drawing important distinctions in his advice. Which is it? I'm satisfied with the latter.

I'll even go so far to say that if he considered his special ability to handle being celibate for long periods of time a spiritual gift, that a) does not prove it to be normative, and b) does not prove that he wasn't married but simply having to be separated for extensive periods due to mission travels.

And finally, if it IS a specific gift from God, then it is STILL non-normative, and not simply up to the individual's choice. Do I get to "place an order" for the gifts of tongues, prophecy, interpretation, discernment, miracles, or Samsonian skill with a donkey's jawbone, and the Holy Spirit simply goes *ka-ching*?

For purposes of argument (ONLY), if we are to accept your premise that the Holy Spirit DOES go down the line and "bestow the gift of celibacy" upon someone when baptized by the HS, then that individual would know that he has received something very unusual, given to help him in his personal uniquely devised-by-God mission.

It would NOT be a simple "I can't find anyone I wanna marry," or "Hey, I'm comfortable enough taking care of my needs alone," or "Being a hermit sounds good -- you know, completely dedicated to God", or "My day is past! My husband divorced me. I'm 40 and unattractive with 3 kids", so "God will be my husband. He must be giving me the gift of celibacy! What else could be going on here? I'll just subside and go with the flow."

However, I clearly don't accept intentional life-long celibacy as being a "gift of the Spirit", nor find 1 Cor 7 definitively declaring that what Paul termed his gift from God was irrefutably, lifelong chosen celibacy. Be satisfied in your own mind that it is, if you like. I'm not.

Finally, even if he was referring to celibacy, his CALLING it a "gift from God" doesn't MAKE it so, any more than Job was accurate in his assessment when he said that "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away," when it was the DEVIL tormenting him with destruction!

There are just too many problems, every which way you look at it, to simply buy into the traditional teaching. Especially when stacked up against a simple, God-breathed, "It is NOT good..." I believe it is a facet of the doctrine of devils against marriage which tries to put intentional chosen celibacy on an equal or higher footing than marriage.
 
For purposes of argument (ONLY), if we are to accept your premise that the Holy Spirit DOES go down the line and "bestow the gift of celibacy" upon someone when baptized by the HS, then that individual would know that he has received something very unusual, given to help him in his personal uniquely devised-by-God mission. It would NOT be a simple "I can't find anyone I wanna marry," or "Hey, I'm comfortable enough taking care of my needs alone," or "Being a hermit sounds good -- you know, completely dedicated to God", or "My day is past! My husband divorced me. I'm 40 and unattractive with 3 kids", so "God will be my husband. He must be giving me the gift of celibacy! What else could be going on here? I'll just subside and go with the flow."
Click to expand...

I agree with that aspect of it. It is not normal to show up in a foreign land and all of sudden be able to speak their language too. That is not the norm but with the gift of the Lord it indeed can be. Too, those statements above I would agree seem more to be excuses instead of a some supernatural and divine gift, maybe even a sign of laziness in some cases or in other cases a defeated attitude.

In regard to the inspiration question, do you see the letters of Paul as supernatural direct revelation from God? Or are they something else? If something else how does Peter's word's in 2 Peter 3:15-16 fit into the matter that he saw Paul's writings as Scripture like the other Scriptures? Do his writings have the same level of authority as the rest of the Bible?
 
his CALLING it a "gift from God" doesn't MAKE it so, any more than Job was accurate in his assessment when he said that "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away," when it was the DEVIL tormenting him with destruction!
Click to expand...

This goes back to my questions on inspiration. If Paul was writing under inspiration then if he said it was a gift how can we say it was not a gift of the Lord? Are we free to say Paul was in error? Or was he confused? Was that one verse not inspired by God?

And if go with the view that his words there were not under divine inspiration by what standard do we use to determine what portions of our Bible is inspired and what portions of it are not inspired directly by God. Even more particular, in Paul's own writings, how do we determine what in his letters are just him speaking in his human nature versus what he spoke through divine inspiration if we do not take all of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, as totally and fully in every word inspired?

Are you saying that Paul's letters of advice were not direct authoritative revelation of God to the saints or that we have to figure out what portions of his letters are inspired and what portions are not inspired? I'm not sure I am understanding what you are saying here.

I can't figure that out at the moment. If Paul said in 2 Timothy that "all scripture is inspired" and Peter called Paul's letters inspired (i.e. Scripture) where and how do we then know what is or is not inspired Scripture if we take a partial inspiration view and not a total inspiration view? Your thoughts?

When I look at Job it was the Devil who could only do what God gave him permission to do. Thus, the Lord did control the matter and thus Job's statement can be seen as an accurate understanding that everything he had was given to him by God and everything he lost due to the Devil's attack against still could only occur with God letting it happen. The Devil was governed by the Lord who even the Devil had to approach to get permission for his attacks. Without God's permission it would not have taken place. And even then God only allowed the Devil to attack him to a point and then no further, which to me implies again God governed the whole process.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
In regard to the inspiration question, do you see the letters of Paul as supernatural direct revelation from God? Or are they something else? If something else how does Peter's word's in 2 Peter 3:15-16 fit into the matter that he saw Paul's writings as Scripture like the other Scriptures? Do his writings have the same level of authority as the rest of the Bible?
Click to expand...

To answer this question, I must seem to digress.

First, I don't believe in word-for-word inspiration of most of scripture. I don't think God sat on the man's shoulder, and whispered, "Next word is 'contrary'. That's right. With an 'a'." I believe God inspired the men, and THEY wrote. An exception may exist for Torah. Maybe. Jury is still out, in my mind. However, when a man wrote a clear, "Thus saith the Lord, ...", I accept that, and wonder why our Bibles don't have those passages in red, not just the words of Jesus during His earthly incarnation?

However, even accepting that Paul was an inspired man, and that his writings do belong in scripture, which I do, then I must also accept that when the dude SAYS, "This came from ME, not God!" He should be trusted to be speaking truthfully. How can you NOT accept that?

So how would you then deal with a person who had a message from God, who was a Heaven commissioned and sent apostle, but who wrote some stuff that was NOT divinely inspired? There is a surprisingly simple, yet never preached (in my experience) Biblical answer. It is found in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimonies (literally, Torah and other OT books)! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Years ago when I was in danger of making shipwreck of my faith over the contradiction of clearly God-sent messengers who sometimes wrote or said things that were demonstrably non-Biblical, God had a bit of a chat with me about this verse. (I don't require that anyone else accept either the story or the conclusion as valid, but you wanted to know my thinking and stance. This is it.) He said,

When folks read or preach this passage, they unconsciously add a suffix, "... at all", so that it reads, "there is no light in them at all". Then they get all judgmental and want to throw out the messenger entirely. However, the err. A suffix SHOULD be added, but it should be "... on that topic." "There is no light in them on that topic." Then you should extend them grace by saying, "They gave the best advice they could, but it is NOT an area in which God had given them an inspired message", and go right along about your business, including being blessed and edified by those portions of their message that ARE inspired.

This has helped me tremendously, for years. For example, I remain blessed by Martin Luther despite his uninspired writings about the Jews. And blessed by the writings of many other Christians despite their belief that it was ok to break the 4th commandment, a position that I find boggling! So back to Paul ...

When he himself recognizes and says that he is speaking something that is NOT a command from the Lord, but his own best advice, he seems to be recognizing and locating his words within the framework above. Best advice he has to give, but NOT inspired. What on earth would cause me to discount that and claim that he didn't know his own mind?

Story time: During the late 1800s, an idea circulated for a time, that there would be no sex in heaven (based upon a maybe right / maybe wrong understanding of Jesus), and that we should therefore strive for that state now. So people tried to have what they called "celestial marriages" (not to be confused with the Mormon meaning and practice of the same term), in which men and women lived together as husband and wife but banned having sex.

Unsurprisingly, it wreaked havoc. And those who felt that it was what they oughta do, the highest ideal and thus what God required of them, felt all guilty about their "moral failures". One such went to a woman whom he considered a God-sent prophet for that time begging for "a word from the Lord" to help him in his difficulty.

She didn't HAVE a specific, new, situation changing revelation from God for the man. In fact, if memory serves, she refused to even converse with him personally on the topic. (Victorian sensibilities?) Instead she simply sent her secretary out to convey the message "Good grief! Go home and be a man!"

Good advice. Result of the Holy Spirit giving her a message from God? I doubt it.

This same "prophet" wrote of a vision of the antediluvian world in which she saw men killing other men and taking their wives. She then wrote that it was because of this sin of polygamy that God destroyed the world by flood. You know something, I don't particularly doubt that she saw that occurring in vision. It might have even been a big part of why God destroyed the world by flood. He certainly wreaked havoc on David's family when David killed a man to take his wife. But I absolutely reject her editorial observation that it was because of the sin of POLYGAMY that God sent the flood. She was a Victorian woman writing during the middle of the anti-Mormon-polygamy craze, and misinterpreted what she saw. The same God who trashed David for killing another man to take his wife had already given David multiple wives, and clearly said He'd have been happy to have provided more.

So. Crisis of faith? Nope. God spoke to and through this prophetess on some things. Not on others, and she did the best she could.

Same with Paul. ESPECIALLY when he himself recognizes it and says so!
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
This goes back to my questions on inspiration. If Paul was writing under inspiration then if he said it was a gift how can we say it was not a gift of the Lord? Are we free to say Paul was in error? Or was he confused? Was that one verse not inspired by God?

And if go with the view that his words there were not under divine inspiration by what standard do we use to determine what portions of our Bible is inspired and what portions of it are not inspired directly by God. ... I can't figure that out at the moment."
Click to expand...

Bro, this is not complicated. If he SAID it isn't inspired, then why not accept his own judgment? *shrug* Easy, right?

If Paul said in 2 Timothy that "all scripture is inspired" and Peter called Paul's letters inspired (i.e. Scripture) where and how do we then know what is or is not inspired Scripture if we take a partial inspiration view and not a total inspiration view? Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Same thiing. If the letter was inspired as a general statement, but the author himself said, "This portion ain't!", then by what process of thought do you feel we should call him an idiot or liar 2000 years later? Further, let's see. If, by your logic he was referring to his own writings when he said 'All scripture is inspired" in 2 Tim, that is circular logic, or at least self serving and David Koresh-like. "All scripture is inspired. I wrote that. And this, btw, is also now scripture. Therefore it is inspired. You can't question it." Riiiiight. Not this little green duck.

Especially when I don't concede that the traditional view of his writings as being supportive of celibacy as a "gift of the spirit" is accurate in the first place!
 
Here is your dilemma, Keith:

Either Paul was inspired when he wrote, "What follows is from me, NOT the Lord," in which case what then followed was indeed not inspired, OR ELSE he was not inspired when he wrote, "What follows is from me, NOT the Lord," in which case what then followed was inspired but what he wrote about it being not inspired was wrong and therefore not inspired.

Either way, you are forced into making a choice and taking responsibility for it. SOME portion of the passage is not inspired -- either the author's evaluation of his own advice, or the advice itself. But which?

Once again, I'm a simple fella. I'll take Paul at his own word. NOT gonna second guess the dude 2000 years later when he says something is from himself, not God. To my mind, second guessing it is a bizarre exercise. I see more sense in a Zen riddle, such as "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
 
Job: Did God purpose in His heart of hearts that Job needed to lose his kids and camels?

Or did God allow the devil to ply his malignant devices while planning to make it up to Job, and in the process discredit the devil?

This is an ancient philosophical discussion which I don't have time to explore here. Why does God allow evil? And if He does, then is He doing the evil and therefore Himself evil or at least possessed of an evil mind towards us?

I've gotta get to work. But will close my involvement with this topic by asserting that the DEVIL took away. And God gave back twice as much once the trial was done and the point made!

If you wanna go off somewhere at the July retreat and argue together over this until we're both frustrated with each other, we can do so then. *chuckling* But it doesn't look like we're achieving any true movement here.

6 forum pages! Unbelievable!
 
Ok, but I sure wish you would still answer my questions about the rest of Paul's writings and how Peter saw them and if those words/letters are considered to be inspired and equal in authority to the rest of the Bible or less inspired or how all of that is explained from your angle. We can do that through pm too, or elsewhere, if you're interested or if you don't want to continue this conversation on this thread. I'm still not clear as to how you see that.
 
Oh. Sorry.

I have no problem with Peter's and Paul's writings being inspired and part of scripture.

In fact, when one of them says one section of his own writings ISN'T, I even believe that.

Further, I believe scripture explains itself, and must harmonize. So if an interpretation of one of their writings contradicts the plain sense of another, and especially where God Himself has spoken, I tend to figure that someone is wresting their writings from the author's intended use. Misinterpreting. My problem isn't with Peter or Paul, but with the modern theologian.

That's clearly, to me, what happens when defending the abandonment of the 4th commandment. And clearly what is happening in using their writings to defend the Catholic doctrine that celibacy is on a par, or even morally above, marriage.
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... :lol:

I am 'choosing' the 'gift' of celibacy by default.

Blessings

Doc
 
Sounds more like "enduring" to me.

And if it must be endured, is it a Gift of the Spirit? I can't see it.

You are doing so gracefully, Doc. And I applaud you. All the while praying for your "gift" *TIC* to end by the simple expedient of someone truly special entering your life as a mate!
 
I hate to give a gift back, though, Cecil...the returns department always has a line, and you usually just end up with a store credit! LOL

About fifteen years ago, my Dad married his third wife. I asked him why he was getting married, and he said, "Because being single SUCKS!" (They separated two years later)

A few weeks ago, I was visiting my Dad, who is now 70, and reminded him what he said. I asked him if he was going to get married again. He replied, "No, Ray, I learned my lesson." I asked him what lesson that was. He said, "Because the only thing that sucks worse than being single is being married."

Of course, I would not classify my ex-army, ex-bartender dad as 'elder' material, so I don't know how much weight it carries with this discussion. I just thought there was some wisdom in there somewhere...just haven't figured out WHAT yet.

Doc

Marriage-Quotes.jpg
 
Understood. I married happily at 19. My middle brother married a few years later. More years passed, and my youngest still hadn't. When he was around age 30, I asked him why not?

He said, "Cecil, there are worse things than being single." I was shocked! SHOCKED! :o "Like WHAT?!!!"

He looked over at my middle brother and his wife. *sigh* "Oh!"

Still, on the whole, I prefer being married. Middle brother traded off his wife for an older but less volatile model. Younger brother finally did marry and sired a couple of full blooded Wiedemanns, making the world a far more bizarre place!

I've always been told that the above picture is PROOF that marriage exists amongst other species. *sigh* Hopefully we can do better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top