It is pretty sad that when I write a blog that is meant to defend Reformed theology and Protestantism, that I have to correct Protestants. Even worse yet, as a married man, I have to defend celibacy. Why? Because the Scripture’s teaching on the matter is clear.
On Christian Forums a Catholic wanted to flame-bait Calvinists into a debate over celibacy:
I responded:
In general, Protestants reject Biblical teaching on chastity, which I think they do to their own error.
However, Paul writes later to the unmarried that if they are young, they should remarry, the same issue being the presumption that they will not be able to deal with their lust.
I think there is a lack of teaching on Christian marriage that Christians should marry for this reason. By default, we are marrying sinners and we ourselves are sinners. So, you already have by default two incompatible people. God calls men to be like Christ to their wives though their wives are sinners and for wives to submit to their husbands as if he were like Christ even though he is a sinner. Throughout the process God will sustain His people by His Spirit and conform married people increasingly to the image of His Son…
However, the issue here at its center is lust. If lust is not a struggle Paul is clear, it is preferable not to marry. If lust IS struggle Paul says it is no sin, it is good to marry. The same God sustains all men and women in both decisions.
Speaking of 1 Cor 7:6 a Protestant wrote:
I responded:
Personally, I oppose this interpretation. The Scripture is the word of God, not Paul. I even think the greetings exist in the epistles, as well as the Epistle to Philemon, to give us an accurate idea of what the Spirit-driven life consists of. There are no useless speculations and opinions in Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed.
As for Paul, he ends the chapter saying, “and I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 7:40). I think Paul is being humble. He knows he is talking by the Spirit, just not from a specific commandment from Jesus’ ministry.
Another Protestant responded:
I replied;
Theoretically yes, but it runs deeper than that. We would not trust a celibate religious leader for marital or child-rearing advice, even though God used Paul for such things and he was unmarried. I think in many ways, we do not trust the leading of the Spirit and doubt how He can work through different people.
Let’s admit it. Unmarried people are considered weird. We don’t trust them as much. Any man unmarried is presumed to be a homosexual in the closet or a real freak that cannot land a woman. I really don’t think this is what the Bible says.
The Holy Spirit can raise unmarried men just as well as married men to lead the church. Of course, God in His wisdom knows there will be many more men with normal sexual inclinations that should be married, which is why in the Pastoral Epistles the guidelines to be a deacon and elder presume the man is married.
I do not share your concern about a demographic epidemic for Christians if they take Paul seriously. God will convict the heart that reads 1 Cor 7 to take the advice according to His will for that man or woman. There will always be Christian parents and children, and there will always be children who become Christians despite their households, and children stay in their sin despite the beliefs of their parents.
Apparently what I wrote was making too much sense, so a Protestant disrespectfully responded:
I responded:
Wait, aren’t we on the same side?
This is the sort of spiritual blindness that has been plaguing Protestants (and by the way I worship at a Reformed Baptist church I am not a Catholic). The whole chapter is God breathed, this is the portion you refer to:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:8, 9)
Clearly, Paul’s instruction is that it is preferable to remain unmarried, but if the individual does not have the gift of celibacy (which is the presumption) then Paul says by all means, don’t struggle with lust and marry.
It is a pretty straight forward teaching, with no corners to get painted into.
Us Protestants should not be cutting off our nose to spite our face. So, that means defending Biblical truths that Rome has been doing a better job explaining on the most part than us.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Good job, and thanks for this. I never thought very much about chastity as a Protestant (and certainly not celibacy) because the only part of this passage that anybody paid any attention to is “it’s better to marry than to burn with a passion” — compelling words, certainly, for a young person.
Another important passage relevant to a vocation to celibacy, that I have never heard any Protestant comment on at all, is Matthew 19:10–12, Jesus speaking on “men who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven” — to which He says, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” I can imagine there might be quibbling about what the “this” Jesus refers to is, but it certainly seems and endorsement of something concerning marriage and celibacy, prompted by the disciples’ exclamation, “It is better not to marry.” Paul himself calls his celibacy a “gift” given by God (1 Cor 7:7). No exegete has supposed (apart from possibly Origen) that “making oneself a eunuch” is a reference to literal castration; rather, a “eunuch” would be (as I’m to understand was an idiom at the time) someone who was not disposed to marriage or sexual activity, or who had voluntarily forsaken it. I have read some recent commenters who suppose “eunuchs from birth” might include people born with homosexual inclinations — the implication of the whole statement being that marriage simply isn’t for everybody.
Another point I seldom hear Protestants discuss is the practical implications of clerical celibacy — the very context of Paul’s recommendation. Paul certainly indicates (especially 1Cor 7:1) that he thinks celibacy is the superior vocation, which makes it all the stranger than Protestants should completely blow it off. Why is celibacy better? Because “the unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (7:32). Unmarried ministers don’t have the distractions of caring for a biological family, pleasing their wives and children (v. 33). In the practical sense, this makes a remarkable difference in Catholic versus Protestant clergy. My girlfriend, a Baptist convert, frequently comments on how impressed she is by the singleminded and selfless devotion to God and church of Catholic priests, and how it makes sense, having seen time and again Protestant pastors either neglecting their biological family because of their devotion to the church, or else being distracted from their ability to care for the church because of family struggles. Whether it was meant to be an injunction or not — and we should take Paul’s word for it that, especially speaking to the laity, he did not intend it as such — he did know what he was talking about.
The peace and grace of the Lord be with you.
Maybe not the most coherent post:
The bigger issue at play with Romanist is the sacramentology they are wrapping it up with. They hold that chastity is a special grace granted by the sacrament of ordination which “spiritually changes” him, which is why they hold all priest “must” have it.
Or, it indicates their sacramental system is faulty. So if priest can’t be celibate then the whole of Trent is wrong. That’s a fun discussion!
It’s also why you need to be careful throwing the word “grace” around when discussing things with Latins.
***
The issue for protestants is that they are prudish on issues of sex. Last I checked sin is sin; they are obsessive over this one type.
***
The bigger theological issue here is that there is a tendency to over-emphasis the purity of virginity as if to imply marriage is a lesser state. I typically claim chastity is more useful for a minister because he has less obligation.
A purity argument also has to slam what God creates (marriage) as good, and what God uses to show his relationship with the church… which is why even really prude dudes like Chrysostom could say “The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the second, faithful marriage. Therefore, a chaste love of matrimony is the second species of virginity” (Chrysost. Hom. de Invent. Crucis.).
Funny the Romans don’t like the idea of having a union with Christ.
(And I really want to crack a blasphemous joke about needed the mother-in-law being in the bed as really strange joke)
There is also the prophecy in Timothy that folks would forbid marriage, and Latins say they don’t, yet ‘Is C’s law any less tyrannical because it only effects part of the population?’
There can’t be a rule saying Christians have to marry or there is no one saying that there isn’t this gift, they are more saying that we can’t give the gift ourselves.
What really also is an issue is vows and that whole trouble too.
But what I typically try to tell protestants is that neither the Roman Institution or the Church have been static. Since Luther’s day both have shifted so Luther’s, Calvin’s, etc. arguments need a bit of refocus or they seem off target for all the obfuscation 500 years puts up.
[Catholics] hold that chastity is a special grace granted by the sacrament of ordination which “spiritually changes” him, which is why they hold all priest “must” have it. Or, it indicates their sacramental system is faulty. So if priest can’t be celibate then the whole of Trent is wrong. That’s a fun discussion!
Actually, this is false. There is nothing about celibacy that is inherent or necessary to the priesthood or holy orders. It is an acknowledged fact in the Church that clerical celibacy was not even a widely-observed norm until the third or fourth century, that the Apostle Peter himself was married. Were non-celibate priests, then, and Peter himself, invalid? There are today, and always have been, married Catholic priests whose state is perfectly licit and orders perfectly valid: such is in fact the norm in the Eastern Catholic churches, and many priests even the West are married (especially those who were already clergy who converted from other Christian traditions). Clerical celibacy is a discipline and a norm, and it could be dismissed, changed, or dispensed with at any time without damage to the Church’s understanding of the priesthood, holy orders, or the Sacraments.
Then that’s why orthodox priest can’t marry after ordination… doesn’t damage nothing. Or the canons of Trent that anathematize anyone that says priest aren’t given the gift of celibacy and that’s why they can’t marry. (On marriage, 13 I believe)
Funny, that’s all you commented back on, someone “misunderstates” a minor point so the rest of the critique goes in one ear and out the other… what does early Church have to do with the Roman institution anyways?
But you probably wouldn’t accept anything but a creed, like they’d put down things onto paper… they aren’t dumb like Nazi’s.
We simply can’t have that kind of debate with a non-creed Institution that runs on “sacramentals” and lay-saints.
But what’s concrete and creed after Trent is their understanding of sacraments imparting grace, and holding celibacy as part of that grace… seems to draw the point. Especially because they damn anyone who doesn’t accept it.
The fact they ignore their own ideas doesn’t mean the ideas aren’t dumb. (And the priest are married BEFORE ordination and the soul change).
They can’t discharge celibacy because it would alter the Romanish understanding of Sex and Sin, and the whole house of cards shifts. For a papist the dogmas and doctrines aren’t worth 10 cents compared to the statues, and matters, and paters.
Now you are just hurling insults, and I don’t have any wish to engage with that. I’m here to have a polite and irenic discussion, and won’t be drawn into petty polemics and name-calling. Peace be with you.
Then that’s why orthodox priest can’t marry after ordination
Saint Paul’s First Letter to Timothy (3:1-6) seems to imply that a married man’s spiritual grasp on his own family is a foreshadowing on his own future abilities as a priest or bishop over the flock of Christ. Since Paul himself was celibate (1 Corinthians 7:7), it is clear that the above was not intended to discredit those who have taken vows of celibacy from entering the priesthood, but rather bachelors, who have neither avowed themselves to a wife, nor to God. Which is why priests can’t marry, since they are supposed either to already be married, or to have otherwise undertaken vows of celibacy. Since divorce is not exactly a virtue (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12), and since vows in general have to be respected (Psalm 76:11), it is not clear under what conditions an ordained person might marry after their consecration.
Find it hard to believe you allow nobdysfool to post here. He is a well known pervert on Christianforums.. A big bad advert for anything.