Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

Scribe

Guest
You create a contradiction because you will not receive the word of God as it is written.

1 Cor 7 and 1 Tim 3 are on different subjects. 1 Tim is speaking of those who desire to pastor a church. 1 Cor 7 is addressing a very carnal group of believers.

If God is calling someone to pastor a church God will send them the appropriate wife to support them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Remember, we can just read. It is not hard. This text cannot be dismissed and state that Paul commanded pastors to be married. He would be contradicting himself.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
Personally, I find it very difficult for anyone to read 1 Timothy 3:1-2.............
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"...........

to then argue that what is printed right in front of your eyes means something other that what it literally says.

Hermeneutics are not needed.
Context is not needed.
Exegesis is not needed.

The only thing needed is the ability to READ!

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

That either mean ONE of TWO things.

1. God said it and I accept it as such.
2. God said it and I DO NOT ACCEPT it as such and I want it to mean what I want it to mean.

YES. It is just that simple my friend!
The pronouns are not exclusively male in the Greek text of that passage, which makes your "literal" reading of the English translation WRONG.

There actually IS more to it than the ability to read.

Here's another example that demonstrates the folly of your method...

"Judas went and hanged himself."
"Go and do thou likewise."
"What you are about to do, do quickly!"

Don't consider the context, don't apply sound hermeneutics, don't attempt any exegesis, just do what it says.

Um, no.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
Well I do not know all the pastors in the world but the ones I do know have children. Children are an evidence of a healthy marriage.
No they aren't. They are merely evidence of sexual intercourse... and these days, even that is questionable.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Well I do not know all the pastors in the world but the ones I do know have children. Children are an evidence of a healthy marriage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Discussing the benefits and blessing of children is no way to answer the question "Did Paul say that a pastor must have children or he cannot be a pastor?"

You seem to be in agreement that he meant "IF" he has children. I don't think you are saying that you believe that a pastor MUST have children but you don't want to come out and say that because you know that it would be inconsistent to do so and insist that he MUST be married rather than "IF" he is married.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
That IS and always has been the case Roger.

All this back and forth is actually a smoke screen from liberal believers who simply do not want to accept the written Word of God as the Written Word of God.
This ^^^ is a stupid comment. You can't defend your position from Scripture, so instead you slander those who disagree with you.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
Discussing the benefits and blessing of children is no way to answer the question "Did Paul say that a pastor must have children or he cannot be a pastor?"

You seem to be in agreement that he meant "IF" he has children. I don't think you are saying that you believe that a pastor MUST have children but you don't want to come out and say that because you know that it would be inconsistent to do so and insist that he MUST be married rather than "IF" he is married.
Careful... don't push too hard. His entire position rests on a foundation of inconsistency. ;)
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Discussing the benefits and blessing of children is no way to answer the question "Did Paul say that a pastor must have children or he cannot be a pastor?"

You seem to be in agreement that he meant "IF" he has children. I don't think you are saying that you believe that a pastor MUST have children but you don't want to come out and say that because you know that it would be inconsistent to do so and insist that he MUST be married rather than "IF" he is married.
I know a missionary who is childless. It's not that he doesn't desire children but God has withheld them for their union. I cite his example only to demonstrate that children are a gift from God. There are no accidental conceptions with God.

You may continue to create contradictions to suit yourself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
No they aren't. They are merely evidence of sexual intercourse... and these days, even that is questionable.
Careful... don't push too hard. His entire position rests on a foundation of inconsistency. ;)
You demonstrate a low opinion of God and a high opinion of yourself. God is in control of procreation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
S

Scribe

Guest
You create a contradiction because you will not receive the word of God as it is written.

1 Cor 7 and 1 Tim 3 are on different subjects. 1 Tim is speaking of those who desire to pastor a church. 1 Cor 7 is addressing a very carnal group of believers.

If God is calling someone to pastor a church God will send them the appropriate wife to support them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I know that the concept of "God sending you someone" gives people warm fuzzies but is that what Paul said?

When you read the chapter he clearly is answering questions that were addressed to him...

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

So he gives a complete explanation of his advice concerning the ability to remain celibate and undistracted focus on the Lord's affairs. (this is not a carnal goal at all) He covers a lot of other related areas but in conclusion it is pretty clear that Paul taught that marriage was a choice. Not a divine mandate or that one would be not obeying God's plan by not marrying. He told them flat out that deciding to turn down an opportunity to marry was not disobeying God. And if he decided to marry he was not disobeying God (He is not sinning.) It is a choice. But yes, it is true that you will be able to focus more on ministry and the things related to the Lord's affairs if you remain single. Therefore it is benificial to a pastor who has the charisma "gift" of celibacy to remain single and focus on the Word of God and prayer. But if he marries he has not sinned. And if he does marry he most marry only in the Lord, a believer and only one wife. And if he has children they must be in subjection. That goes for all Christians but the pastor must be blameless. You don't appoint someone who is not blameless and being single has been detailed by Paul as nothing to be ashamed about, and has spiritual benefits therefore being single is still blameless.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

6 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

Now why someone can read 1 Cor 7 and then suggest that being single and undistractedly devoted to the Lords affairs would be good for the average Christian but not for a pastor suggests that they are wildly grasping at straws to defend an indefensible hermeneutic instead of just conceding that Paul would not demand a pastor to be married if he did not want to be married.

And of course he never said that. He said BLAMELESS, then begin to list examples. such as not being married to more than one wife, etc.. It's the only interpretation that does not contradict what Paul has said about the spiritual benefits of celibacy and his own words...

I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

He did not say "I wish that ALL of you were as I am (except for pastors)"

And saying that he was giving advice to carnal Christians does not even make sense. What does that even mean?

Because you are carnal I would that you staid single? But to the spiritualy mature they should get married? That is not what he taught them. He said the opposite. If you have the gift be like me and be undistractedly devoted to the Lords affairs. But if you ARE carnal and can't handle it, get married, it is better to marry than to burn. So your carnal christian theory makes no sense.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
I know a missionary who is childless. It's not that he doesn't desire children but God has withheld them for their union. I cite his example only to demonstrate that children are a gift from God. There are no accidental conceptions with God.

You may continue to create contradictions to suit yourself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I know of single pastors who are awesome pastors. They don't want to get married. They say they can spend much more undistracted devotional time in prayer and the Word and believe that Paul was correct. They are living it.

If we are going to talk about people's experiences I thought I would throw that in. Where is the contradiction? They are not the husband of more than one wife, and in that regard they are blameless. They have no unruly children because they have no children and they are blameless.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
I know a missionary who is childless. It's not that he doesn't desire children but God has withheld them for their union. I cite his example only to demonstrate that children are a gift from God. There are no accidental conceptions with God.

You may continue to create contradictions to suit yourself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
But it says... having his children in subjection with all gravity;

How can he have his children in subjection if he does not have any. He cannot be a pastor. That is what Paul said. Stop rejecting the scripture that a pastor must have children!

(Using your logic about "husband of one wife" )
 
A

Amber1980

Guest
A
But it says... having his children in subjection with all gravity;

How can he have his children in subjection if he does not have any. He cannot be a pastor. That is what Paul said. Stop rejecting the scripture that a pastor must have children!

(Using your logic about "husband of one wife" )
 
A

Amber1980

Guest
Im not a scholar of the Bible by no means and it has been very interesting reading all the post on this subject, all I can add is our church has a married couple who are both ordained as Ministers and it seems to be working out fine.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
I know that the concept of "God sending you someone" gives people warm fuzzies but is that what Paul said?

He did not say "I wish that ALL of you were as I am (except for pastors)"

And saying that he was giving advice to carnal Christians does not even make sense. What does that even mean?

Because you are carnal I would that you staid single? But to the spiritualy mature they should get married? That is not what he taught them. He said the opposite. If you have the gift be like me and be undistractedly devoted to the Lords affairs. But if you ARE carnal and can't handle it, get married, it is better to marry than to burn. So your carnal christian theory makes no sense.
The church at Corinth was a church that was very carnal. The problem of promiscuity was severe in that church so carnal fits very well to the actual situation of that church.

This passage of scripture was not addressing pastoral candidates. It was addressing those who were naming Christ and living like the merchants that often passed through the city.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
You demonstrate a low opinion of God and a high opinion of yourself. God is in control of procreation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
You continually make ad hominem comments, but can’t mount a rational and biblical argument for your position.
 

Reformed1689

Active member
Jun 1, 2018
151
56
28
Part of post

This thread was started back in the first week of January. Back when I first joined in 2011 or so this topic routinely came up, and has continued to come up it appears, and I suspect will continue to come up. The root issue that causes it to resurface continually ultimately isn't a different in understanding in scripture, a difference in methods of interpretation, or a difference in honesty. Ultimately it's a difference in culture.


The reason I say it's a difference in culture, is because we in the west especially have become like fish swimming in water with know understanding of what it means to be wet because we have known nothing else to compare the experience of being wet to. Like so living in the west we have not known anything other than a completely degenerate and self-destructive society hell-bent on undoing every good thing that God has given us. We have not lived in a society let alone a civilization for hundreds of years that actually has an respect for God, the scriptures, or good order. We have lived in a rebellious land with rebellious people so long, that what the scriptures teach is actually appalling to us.


The scripture is quite clear it seems, whether looking at the English or at the original Greek and Hebrew that male leadership in the Church and in Israel as a whole was typically male with only few exceptions. That norm was established both by commands from God in the Old Testament and the New Testament.



The Old Testament establishes the pattern in part by appointing Aaron as a priest over the people of Israel:


Leviticus 10


8 And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, 9 “Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses.”


Exodus 29

7 You shall take the anointing oil and pour it on his head and anoint him. 8 Then you shall bring his sons and put coats on them, 9 and you shall gird Aaron and his sons with sashes and bind caps on them. And the priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever. Thus you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.




Exodus 40


12 Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall wash them with water 13 and put on Aaron the holy garments. And you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest. 14 You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them, 15 and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests. And their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.”



We do see some exceptions in the Old Testament, and of course this is usually offered up in the series of "what abouts?" that are raised by people who want to be more similar to the current culture. We see exceptions such as Miriam, and with Deborah who was a prophetess. I would first point out that a Prophet and a Priest although very similar are somewhat separate in their nature, and objecting to a Priest/Pastor role that excludes females by appealing to a prophetess is a bit disingenuous. It's still a valid and interesting point, just not entirely a good one. The case provided with Miriam shows us the pattern we should follow on a routine basis.



What about Miriam?


Exodus 15


19 For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. 20 Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. 21 And Miriam sang to them:

“Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;
the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.”



Notice here that Miriam is recognized as a prophetess, and that she sang to people. I ask you though to notice as well the gender of the people she sings to. Miriam is also possibly punished for attempting to usurp male authority in Numbers by being cast out of the camp for seven days after she had already been healed of leprosy by Aaron.


Throughout the Old Testament we will see a similar pattern and realize that female prophetesses usually functioned not to usurp male authority but rather to support male authority in the execution of its godly duties. This same role is given to us in the New Testament multiple times. Let's consider a common passages, Ephesians 5.




Ephesians 5


22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.



Of course before we even begin with this passage to explain male and female relationships or church leadership, people will always go to verse 21 which says: "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." Usually this will be followed with some rendition of "A-hah! I have nullified verses 22-24! You're point is moot!" The problem with this is that it totally ignores the fact that verse 21 belongs to the topic of sexual immorality that Paul begins addressing in verse 3: But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints . It is a verse intended to teach us how to deal with our own sin and depravity as humans in a body, namely, the church. It is a relevant verse as a matter of general principle when it comes to a marriage or church leadership. It does not however directly apply to qualifications or duties of leadership in a spiritual setting.


Ephesians 5 along with others we'll get to reaffirm the role of male leadership generally and specifically in this case in that of marriage. We also see that it typifies the nature of the relationship men and women have with one another. The female is to submit to the leadership of the husband, the reason stated is that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the church. Who leads who with the Church-Christ relationship? Does the church lead Christ? No. So then why would the wife lead the husband? Only because the husband is weak and has abrogated his duties, or because neither of them particularly believe what God has to say. This will only be to their detriment. The male responsibility to his wife and as a leader in the congregation is to sanctify, to teach, to disciple, and to then present the woman or the congregation to Christ as a member(s) of the Bride of Christ.
 

Reformed1689

Active member
Jun 1, 2018
151
56
28
Part two of post


1 Cor. 11



2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God.


Notice that in verse three when discussing whether or not head coverings should be used Paul begins by reminding the leader of the if you will "chain of command" that exists between Christ, a husband, and his wife. Then when discussing it further he explains that a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because she was created for man. We can discuss what qualifies as a covering in another thread and I don't wished to be bogged down on that one, but in establishing what it means Paul appeals to the same spiritual currents found in the Old Testament and elsewhere in the New Testament.


Now we come closer to the end. We go to the most oft-cited 1 Timothy 3.


1 Timothy 3


3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?


8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,[c] not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise[d] must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 1


Notice that in 1 Timothy 3 one of the qualifications is how well a potential leader has managed their own home and the people in it. Why would this be? It is a result of the fact that a good predictor (not perfect) of how well a person can lead a church is by examining how well they have carried out their duties at home. I currently serve in the Military, and we have a phrase we use often if we see someone who is say a MSgt serving in a SSgt capacity: You are promoted to your level of incompetence. This means that you will not be promoted to a position you cannot handle based on how you have performed in lower responsibility positions. Think back to Ephesians 5 and remember that it is the husband who was given the primary responsibility to lead and nourish his wife and by implication his children (stated explicitly elsewhere but not our focus). If a man has failed to lead and nourish his wife's spirituality how will he do anything differently when responsible for 10-1000 people? He hasn't got the experience nor the success to prove his willingness let alone ability.



1 Timothy 3 also states that one of the qualifications like the Priesthood of the Old Testament has a gender requirement stated in the phrase "husband of one wife." Usually people will laser focus on the phrase "one" and assert it's about removing polygamists from eligibility. This just goes to show how little they've actually listened to their own argument or the language of scripture. In order to limit the leadership role to monogamy they emphasize again that the person who isn't eligible if polygamous is the husband who is by nature a male. That's rather inconvenient, isn't it.



So what should we then say? Well, the ultimate problem is that we have adopted a secular theology called egalitarianism that is rooted in the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment that said that all people regardless of their position, role, or authority in society are equal in terms of due respect, authority, value, and productivity. The reality is unfortunately the bible does not affirm this philosophy as presented, and neither should we. The scriptures make it clear that part of a health church and healthy society is good order and good rule which is in part established by authority figures with the ability to execute that authority. We see this in Romans 13 and elsewhere. So then we should be concerned when we see female leadership in the church executing authority over men because they are violating the orders God has given us. Additionally one should consider practically speaking, which brings us to another common objection, why would a woman want to lead a group of men in the first place? Me personally, I don't always enjoy being born as a male. Yes, there are perks such as being able to relieve oneself during a road trip or at a campsite. Overall though it comes with a great deal more responsibility, and a great deal more consequences.


James 3


Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.


James 3 tells us that people who teach and generally speaking have authority (mentioned elsewhere specifically) will be judged far more harshly than those who don't. Why would you want to have this responsibility and the following judgement? I sometimes think about the things I have done in life, or the things I have said or done when in heated moments with my wife. They aren't pleasant thoughts. Not only because of the immediate sense of shame about sin, but more so because I think about the fact that as someone who teaches my wife scripture I must ensure that I am presenting it accurately lest I be judged harshly for it. The same is true for a congregation. I am not vying for leadership in a church because I do not want this brought upon myself. What I don't understand just in terms of human life, why would a woman want to? The reaction might be: "The men aren't doing their job and the women have to!" or some variation of "some women are more qualified!" These are both good points. I think generally speaking it also points to the fact that female leadership over men is usually a result of a failure of men to provide that leadership. The second quoted phrase of course is a bit oxymoronic. If gender is a matter of qualification then they can't by nature be more qualified. If we only look at qualification in terms of education or years in ministry it's not an invalid point, but it misses the most important point. I am more qualified in terms of job experience for the mission I conduct on behalf of the Air Force. That does not however give me any authority over an officer who has a higher rank than me, authority over me, and has been given that authority in a commission from the President. Notice here the same structure. We have an authority issuer, an authority receiver and executer, and a submitter.



- JimmyDiggs
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The church at Corinth was a church that was very carnal. The problem of promiscuity was severe in that church so carnal fits very well to the actual situation of that church.

This passage of scripture was not addressing pastoral candidates. It was addressing those who were naming Christ and living like the merchants that often passed through the city.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Even if it were true that these that asked the question were "carnal" they were not asking him if it was ok for them to have sex without being married, they were asking if it was better not to have sex at all. Sounds like they were seeking a higher road, a denial of self and focus on ministry. Something like what one called to be a Pastor would ask.

His answer was yes, it would be best if they could be like him but not everyone has that gift, therefore it is better to marry than to burn.

He did not say if you were like me, (not carnal and pastoral material, you should get married) He said it was better to be like him. What pastor does not want to follow Paul's example when it comes to that which is the most spiritual choice and not carnal.

Are you saying that if a person is carnal it is better for them to be like Paul but if they are spiritually mature it is not better to be like Paul?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Even if it were true that these that asked the question were "carnal" they were not asking him if it was ok for them to have sex without being married, they were asking if it was better not to have sex at all. Sounds like they were seeking a higher road, a denial of self and focus on ministry. Something like what one called to be a Pastor would ask.

His answer was yes, it would be best if they could be like him but not everyone has that gift, therefore it is better to marry than to burn.

He did not say if you were like me, (not carnal and pastoral material, you should get married) He said it was better to be like him. What pastor does not want to follow Paul's example when it comes to that which is the most spiritual choice and not carnal.

Are you saying that if a person is carnal it is better for them to be like Paul but if they are spiritually mature it is not better to be like Paul?
No carnal believers ask not to find the correct way to obey but rather to question to find a way to justify rebellion against Gods word. They know what Gods word says and understand what it says they just do not want to believe it and obey it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
S

Scribe

Guest
No carnal believers ask not to find the correct way to obey but rather to question to find a way to justify rebellion against Gods word. They know what Gods word says and understand what it says they just do not want to believe it and obey it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
It's ok, married people are afraid to agree with Paul on this one, they are afraid they will get in trouble from you know who? :)

It is a carnal mind that rejects Paul's reasoning concerning not marrying and not having sex (not touching a woman) (if they have the gift) because of the benefit of the undistracted devotion to the affairs of the Lord.

Finding a way to make Paul mean that this was for a carnal Corinthian and not for anyone seeking to live a life undistracted for devotion to the affairs of the Lord is in effect a carnal attempt to reject Paul's advice. I agree.