What is the rule of faith for Christians?

[farouk]

OK thanks.

@Ronald Nolette The Reformed constituency folk tend to say that the law is the rule of the believer's life. Whereas dispensationalists tend to think it's the Gospel that is the rule.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@Ronald Nolette The Reformed constituency folk tend to say that the law is the rule of the believer's life. Whereas dispensationalists tend to think it's the Gospel that is the rule.

Well I am a mongrel Christian I guess. I am a strong dispensationalist, but I believe teh gospel command prior to Matthew 12's events are for Israel.

Teh epistles are the Constitution for the church.

 

[farouk]

Well I am a mongrel Christian I guess. I am a strong dispensationalist, but I believe teh gospel command prior to Matthew 12's events are for Israel.

Teh epistles are the Constitution for the church.

Actually I wasn't referring to the 4 Gospels, specifically; I was referring to the body of doctrine called the gospel as opposed to how the Reformed constituency seems constantly to be making an appeal to the law.

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL! One of your holey ones says "no salvation outside the church" and in the next paragraph says "one can be saved outside the church, BUT............................"

I’ve come to find that “LOL!” on this forum usually means, “Oh no! I put my foot in my mouth again – deflect, deflect!!”

Pay attention: It is the SAME teaching.

EVERYBODY is saved BY the blood of Christ – but they are saved THROUGH the Church (Matt.29:19-20, Matt. 16-18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15).

As I educated you earlier, the Catechism has explained this so that even a 3-year-old can understand . . .

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too MAY achieve eternal salvation.

Remember what Jesus told the Pharisees –
John 9:41
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

He also said:
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

God doesn’t punish the ignorant as He does the sinful.

 

[Charlie24]

I’ve come to find that “LOL!” on this forum usually means, “Oh no! I put my foot in my mouth again – deflect, deflect!!”

Pay attention: It is the SAME teaching.

EVERYBODY is saved BY the blood of Christ – but they are saved THROUGH the Church (Matt.29:19-20, Matt. 16-18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15).

As I educated you earlier, the Catechism has explained this so that even a 3-year-old can understand . . .

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too MAY achieve eternal salvation.

Remember what Jesus told the Pharisees –
John 9:41
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

He also said:
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

God doesn’t punish the ignorant as He does the sinful.

If there is just one person in all the universe that can be saved outside the church, for whatever reason.

That makes the statement "no salvation outside the church" a false statement!

Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

If there is just one person in all the universe that can be saved outside the church, for whatever reason.

That makes the statement "no salvation outside the church" a false statement!
Does that sound reasonable to you?

Your statement above in RED makes absolutely NO sense grammatically.
Would you like to rephrase that?

 

[Charlie24]

Your statement above in RED makes absolutely NO sense grammatically.
Would you like to rephrase that?

No, I don't want to change it, I think it's common sense.

My statement can be free from laws and regulations of the church you honor.

Charlie is not bound by those regulations as you are, I can speak freely and sensibly.

On the other hand, you have no freedom of speech, being bound to the obedience of the church.

Charlie doesn't answer to a church, I answer directly to my Saviour.

 

[theefaith]

Yes. In scripture it is called the Church of God and the Churches of God.

Where have you been lately? I haven’t seen you around. Is all well with you?

I was out sick for awhile, thanks

why did Christ found the church?

 

[Charlie24]

I was out sick for awhile, thanks

why did Christ found the church?

So Peter could be the first Pope?

I don't understand, theefaith, Peter was married, and if Christ appointed Peter the first Pope and he was married, why does the church demand celibacy? I don't remember any commandment from Christ to change that, maybe you do.

 

[Marymog]

Exactly. People take the verse in James to be the sole proof that salvation must come by faith AND works. Yet, if that is the absolute interpretation of it, then you have a contradiction in the Bible. Therefore, if that is what someone believes, then they believe in a errant Bible, one that does have flaws. If something in the Bible appears to say two different thing appearing to be opposing each other, then the two have to be reconciled. Since in Paul's letters, in a few places (Romans and Ephesians come to mind) it clearly says that faith is a gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

So if someone is saying that James says salvation is by faith and works and that Paul says that "it is by grace you have been saved... not by works so that no one can boast". Then what is it? Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? The only reconciliation of the two verses is that when James means salvation is of faith and works he means (as he explains in his letter) that faith without works is a dead faith. The works come out of the faith so in essence salvation is of faith and works because without faith there will be no works (and vice versa, without works there is no faith since that kind of faith is dead).

But if he does mean that salvation is only given to one who does a certain amount of works first, then what reconciliation can be applied to Paul's statement? Paul clearly cuts out works from salvation (there can be no interpretive gymnastics when he says "..you have been saved, through faith--and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..." I'm trying to come up with some incredible gymnastics myself but nothing is coming to me: let's see for a minute... So he really doesn't mean that it's not without "any" works; he really does mean some but he says "not" because he really just wants to make a definitive statement, stressing the faith and not works. Um, okay. Trying again here: Let's just say he's talking about the faith that comes out of works, like the works that get you to the faith--but then the works don't count. God just disqualifies the works and says they're imperfect so he gives the faith as a gift but he doesn't look at the works. I'm really trying here. Nothing is really making much sense. Anyone else want to give it a shot?). But James says "No, works need to be there first". So... I guess Paul's wrong? So then the Holy Spirit is wrong. So then God's word contains contradictions.

It would be nice to get an explanation from the salvation = faith + works side.

Works are indeed a necessary component of one's faith. People think that faith means giving God lip service only ("This generation honors me with their lips, while their heart is far from me", Matthew 15:18), rather than actually doing good deeds for others. "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father" (Matthew 7:21)

The only time you actually do see the words faith and alone together in a sentence is in James 2:24, where James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Why is this important? In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:

1. Did you feed the hungry?

2. Did you clothe the naked?

3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.

If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Just as it's not enough to tell your spouse that you love them, and never do anything for them, it's also true of your faith relationship with Jesus. Faith and performing good works for your fellow man go together like body and soul. So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH, although it is a great start on your salvation journey!!

If we are to imitate Jesus, who performed many good works, then it is a natural thing to do good works as a true Christian. If our motive for doing good works is personal praise and not to build up the Kingdom of God, then Jesus says that we are already rewarded in this world and will not be rewarded in heaven (Matthew 6:1).

One very important passage in the Bible that specifically spells out the necessity of works as a result of the grace that God gives us all and the resultant faith in Jesus Christ is Matthew 25:31-46.

Mary

 

[Matthias]

I was out sick for awhile, thanks

I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you’re feeling much better and I’m glad to see you posting again.

why did Christ found the church?

We’ve discussed this before. I’ll take a different tact this time and see where that takes us.

Christ founded the Church for - to be - the body of the new creation.

 

[Illuminator]

Exactly. People take the verse in James to be the sole proof that salvation must come by faith AND works. Yet, if that is the absolute interpretation of it, then you have a contradiction in the Bible. Therefore, if that is what someone believes, then they believe in a errant Bible, one that does have flaws. If something in the Bible appears to say two different thing appearing to be opposing each other, then the two have to be reconciled. Since in Paul's letters, in a few places (Romans and Ephesians come to mind) it clearly says that faith is a gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

So if someone is saying that James says salvation is by faith and works and that Paul says that "it is by grace you have been saved... not by works so that no one can boast". Then what is it? Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? The only reconciliation of the two verses is that when James means salvation is of faith and works he means (as he explains in his letter) that faith without works is a dead faith. The works come out of the faith so in essence salvation is of faith and works because without faith there will be no works (and vice versa, without works there is no faith since that kind of faith is dead).

But if he does mean that salvation is only given to one who does a certain amount of works first, then what reconciliation can be applied to Paul's statement? Paul clearly cuts out works from salvation (there can be no interpretive gymnastics when he says "..you have been saved, through faith--and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..." I'm trying to come up with some incredible gymnastics myself but nothing is coming to me: let's see for a minute... So he really doesn't mean that it's not without "any" works; he really does mean some but he says "not" because he really just wants to make a definitive statement, stressing the faith and not works. Um, okay. Trying again here: Let's just say he's talking about the faith that comes out of works, like the works that get you to the faith--but then the works don't count. God just disqualifies the works and says they're imperfect so he gives the faith as a gift but he doesn't look at the works. I'm really trying here. Nothing is really making much sense. Anyone else want to give it a shot?). But James says "No, works need to be there first". So... I guess Paul's wrong? So then the Holy Spirit is wrong. So then God's word contains contradictions.

It would be nice to get an explanation from the salvation = faith + works side.

There is no contradiction because Paul's "works" refers to the works of the law whereas James "works" refers to good works. Different words are used with entirely different meanings.

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 – many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by “works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” Here is the proof:

James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to
Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and
Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.”
James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself.

This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g., clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 – Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law.
James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

Rom. 3:29 – Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 4:9-17 – Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith. But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”

Rom. 9:31-32 – righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”

The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon 7:

If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]
​

Sadly, that is not enough to put an end to the stupid charge of "works righteousness" constantly levied against Catholics.

Second Orange again:

The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.​

Yet the lie of "works righteousness" persists in anti-Catholic books, videos and web sites.
Likewise, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter 5, Decree on Justification:

. . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
​

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes the Catholic view:

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of supernatural good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man.​

(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1974 [orig. 1952], 264)

​

St. Augustine wrote:

What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?​

(Ep. 194, 5, 19; in Ott, 265)

All this evidence, yet the LIE of "works righteousness" won't go away.

​

 

[Charlie24]

There is no contradiction because Paul's "works" refers to the works of the law whereas James "works" refers to good works. Different words are used with entirely different meanings.

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 – many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by “works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” Here is the proof:

James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to
Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and
Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.”
James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 – Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

Rom. 3:29 – Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 4:9-17 – Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith. But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”

Rom. 9:31-32 – righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”

The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon 7:

If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]

Sadly, that is not enough to put an end to the false charge of "works righteousness" constantly levied againts Catholics.​

I have a contradiction that Paul is always referring to the Law when using the word "works."

Rom. 4:2-4
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."


Paul is saying here that Abraham was not saved by works, it was only faith!

The works here are not referring to Law, Abraham existed before the Law!

 

[theefaith]

So Peter could be the first Pope?

I don't understand, theefaith, Peter was married, and if Christ appointed Peter the first Pope and he was married, why does the church demand celibacy? I don't remember any commandment from Christ to change that, maybe you do.

celibacy is a discipline not a dogma
Dogma is immutable
Disciplines can change
But you may be unaware that those in religious life (monks, nun, etc.) have always had the requirement of being consecrated to God in celibacy

Jesus speaks of those who sacrifice family for the gospel
Was Paul married?

 

[theefaith]

I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you’re feeling much better and I’m glad to see you posting again.



We’ve discussed this before. I’ll take a different tact this time and see where that takes us.

Christ founded the Church for - to be - the body of the new creation.

yes true by what means?

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I don't want to change it, I think it's common sense.

No – it doesn’t make ANY sense grammatically.
I’m talking about your sentence structure:

“If there is just one person in all the universe that can be saved outside the church, for whatever reason.”

What does this mean?? What are you trying to say??
READ it slowly out loud - it doesn’t make ANY sense in English.

Can you rephrase it so that it makes sense?

My statement can be free from laws and regulations of the church you honor.

Charlie is not bound by those regulations as you are, I can speak freely and sensibly.

On the other hand, you have no freedom of speech, being bound to the obedience of the church.

Charlie doesn't answer to a church, I answer directly to my Saviour.

Then Charlies doesn’t know his Bible and is ignorant of the Word of God . . .

You don’t have the slightest clue as to WHAT the Church is.
Allow me to educate you from God’s Word:’

- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

- Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).

So, if Charlies doesn’t answer to Christ’s Church then Charlies doesn’t answer to CHRIST Himself.
Good luck with that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I don't want to change it, I think it's common sense.

No – it doesn’t make ANY sense grammatically.
I’m talking about your sentence structure:

“If there is just one person in all the universe that can be saved outside the church, for whatever reason.”

What does this mean?? What are you trying to say??
READ it slowly out loud - it doesn’t make ANY sense in English.

Can you rephrase it so that it makes sense?

My statement can be free from laws and regulations of the church you honor.

Charlie is not bound by those regulations as you are, I can speak freely and sensibly.

On the other hand, you have no freedom of speech, being bound to the obedience of the church.

Charlie doesn't answer to a church, I answer directly to my Saviour.

Then Charlies doesn’t know his Bible and is ignorant of the Word of God . . .

You don’t have the slightest clue as to WHAT the Church is.
Allow me to educate you from God’s Word:’

- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

- Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).

So, if Charlies doesn’t answer to Christ’s Church then Charlies doesn’t answer to CHRIST Himself.
Good luck with that . . .

 

[Charlie24]

No – it doesn’t make ANY sense grammatically.
I’m talking about your sentence structure:

“If there is just one person in all the universe that can be saved outside the church, for whatever reason.”

What does this mean?? What are you trying to say??
READ it slowly out loud - it doesn’t make ANY sense in English.

Can you rephrase it so that it makes sense?

Then Charlies doesn’t know his Bible and is ignorant of the Word of God . . .

You don’t have the slightest clue as to WHAT the Church is.
Allow me to educate you from God’s Word:’

- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus said that HE is the Light of the World (John 8:12).
Jesus also said that His Church is the Light of the world (Matt. 5:14).

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would ALSO be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).

- The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

- Jesus gave His Church Supreme earthly Authority, that WHATEVER His Church declared on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).

- Jesus said about his Church: “Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME" (Luke 10:16).

So, if Charlies doesn’t answer to Christ’s Church then Charlies doesn’t answer to CHRIST Himself.
Good luck with that . . .

I can agree on one of your statements!

Charlie is not the brightest bulb on the tree, I will admit that!

I'm a little slow to catch on at times.

 

[Charlie24]

celibacy is a discipline not a dogma
Dogma is immutable
Disciplines can change
But you may be unaware that those in religious life (monks, nun, etc.) have always had the requirement of being consecrated to God in celibacy

Jesus speaks of those who sacrifice family for the gospel
Was Paul married?

You make a good point! Paul remained unmarried saying that is what he recommended, but if you can't contain yourself, then marry.

It may be a discipline with good intentions, but it's a man-made discipline when made mandatory, not according to Christ.

Some would say this is an example of many "traditions of men" found in the RCC.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You make a good point! Paul remained unmarried saying that is what he recommended, but if you can't contain yourself, then marry.

It may be a discipline with good intentions, but it's a man-made discipline when made mandatory, not according to Christ.

Some would say this is an example of many "traditions of men" found in the RCC.

Some ignorant people would say that, yes.

Celibacy is a discipline that is based in SCRIPTURE (1 Cor. 7:8-40), however – and didn’t just jump out of someone’s head one day.