i've been working on this for a while, here it is -- First off, I will concede that you make a strong case, but I have a number of issues, and I'd like @incognito 's opinion here if he would be so kind, since I can't hope to accurately quote the scriptures. As stated elsewhere, I don't claim to be any authority on the matter, merely a different viewpoint, so I am willing to accept a reasonable contradiction, but such must foremost be reasonable. 1. the calling - you say that because voluntary celibacy for the sake of prayer and service isn't explicitly excepted, it cannot be justified, and i think you're wrong. It's not celibacy for celibacy's sake but for a reason. and a monk doesn't serve God by being celibate. they sacrifice their sexuality as an offering maybe or its so their heart is undivided or something — What about a person's sacred calling? Do you claim to know God's intent for everyone then? are you saying that because someone feels like they are called to monasticism, they are automatically wrong because that's not a calling? That subjective and personal faith is invalid unless it fits into the prescribed exceptions? What I mean by, always forbidden, on occasion mandatory, -- thinking here, what is the point of the Abraham and Isaac story? Is it that it's never okay to kill your kids, even when God commands it, because he changed his mind? Isn't it that He can sometimes ask things of us that seem contradictory to test our hearts? To see if we are truly commited. So couldn't it be said that He might require some men and/or women to take that vow of celibacy as their personal sacrifice, even if it's hard? Maybe because it's hard. 2. Just because the Bible doesn't specifically say it's okay, doesn't mean it isn't. I want to ask: does the Bible mention internet ministry, youtube videos, or sunday school, or ministry like this via social media? such things obviously didn't exist back then; it doesn't make them wrong or evil now, just because the people who wrote the bible didn't think to include them. What I mean is, there's a massive leap between what is considered normal and what is sinful. Aren't we all meant to serve God according to our given gifts, as you believe you are doing here? If marrying is a blessing because it serves God, not marrying in order to serve God in other ways isn't necessarily sinful. It's not like the only way to serve God is to marry and have kids, even in today's society. There are literally billions of people and they can serve God in billions of ways besides having babies. which brings me to 3. Reproduction and intrinsic value - if I understand correctly, and I may be wrong here, but what i think i read is, you're basically saying that all I am good for is popping out babies for the sake of perpetuating God's kingdom. As a mother, I'm not just a unit of reproduction. Don't I have some intrinsic value as a person and a parent? Is my character and my heart and how I use those for God, worth nothing if I don't make babies? and now 4. Interpretation vs. authority - and this is my main point. -- Who are you to judge? there are scriptures and scriptures about this. You may say it's God's word that is speaking, but I say that it’s your interpretation of God's word that I am seeing and I have issues with it. I am not saying I think you're totally wrong, but that you may be ascribing your personal biases to something that may—and I would argue is supposed to—speak differently to everyone. You're basically saying that marriage and making babies is something we have no choice in, because its normal, because its commanded and because its necessary, regardless of our personal gifts or circumstances, aside from a few strictly limited exceptions. That, in my possibly biased opinion, would make it less of a blessing and more of a burden. I think there's more to it than that. What about the Holy Spirit and God's mysterious ways? By your logic, God is a bureaucrat, and free will is a myth and the only way be biblical is to do exactly and explicitly only as the bible says you may do. I am not arguing whether monks are biblical, i am arguing whether anything about our modern life is. and as such is not being biblical explicitly sinful. It's less about God's standard and more about yours.
Thanks for this. A longer answer later, but some quick comments:
1) I assume from what you say in the beginning that you aren't attempting to make a Scriptural case. Which is fine, it is just a different discussion.
2) I don't see much in here defending the permanent vow of unmarriage... I assume you are not attempting to promote it? You say 'couldn't it be said..." and ask a question about God's motives IF He had said that... but you are not attempting to say that He has said that, right?
Just these two quick comments for now, more later :)
my thanks in return. this has gotten a lot bigger than I thought it would. as for 2. If we are going to reduce the argument again... You're right. I am not promoting a vow of unmarriage, nor do I believe is @Incognito. Defend it sure. I agree with you that it maybe shouldn't be promoted as a universal good, because it's not normal, and the fact that this case is so difficult to make shows that probably shouldn't be. What I am saying, is that just because it's not normal doesn't make it wrong. I am saying that just because it does not exist in the bible, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. I am saying that you cannot claim to know God's motives. I am saying that you are not qualified to judge what is and is not evil. I can't quote verses to you, but I know a good bit. I am asking you to accept that there are exceptions and special cases. To list them all would be exhaustive, so it should be enough to accept that exceptions can be made, even if not explicitly stated. My case being that it does not have to be stated for it to be true. I am asking you to admit that God sometimes asks things of people that seem contradictory or even insane, again to list the possible cases would take forever, but admit that God sometimes seems to break his own rules. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad. God's mysterious ways and all. Accept that The Plan is too big to be contained in a thousand or two thousand pages. You say yourself that FAITH is the point. I also want you to admit that you can't take subjectivity out of faith. It is a subjective and personal thing by nature, unique, based on a relationship. You can't take feelings out of the equation. And God doesn't speak to us like he does to the people in the bible. We have to take it on faith that he communicates in other ways, and those ways are too numerous and unexpected to contain in a book. God's will is bigger than the bible. There's more to this, don't go away.
There is a whole, whole lot to unpack here. But there is one theme that seems to occur over and over and over again that seems to be good to start with. I will call it ‘feelings’, but it goes under several names in this note. Feelings, calling, subjective… there are several of them.
It might take a whole post to talk about this, but in the light of a Scriptural discussion these are all out of bounds. Unless one wishes to begin the argument, “God calls us to follow our feelings” (good luck with that!) then the question needs to be turned to what God wants, God’s Will, God’s Word, God’s plan.
So let’s look at Abraham and Isaac. Are we left wondering what God wanted out of that situation? Or does Scripture speak on the issue?
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Heb 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
So, God gives us the point of the story. By faith.
And that is the point of my argument as well. We best serve God when, by faith, we look to see what He wants us to do. We don’t consult our own feelings, our own calling… we look to Him. We do not bemoan our lot in life, or wonder why He has put us into this or that position… we seek to do His will.
»you're basically saying that all I am good for is popping out babies for the sake of perpetuating God's kingdom.
And this is literally the opposite of what I am saying. Even in my condemnation of monks I list lots of things, only one of which involves ‘popping out babies’. Let me repost it:
They don’t marry
They don’t have sex
They don’t have children
They don’t raise a Godly family
They don’t serve as an example for other young men and women
They don’t have Godly grandchildren and future generations
These things are especially problematic in today’s age, where
We have so few Christians marrying
They are marrying late
They are not having children (let alone a full quiver)
They are not raising Godly families
Sodomy
Transgender
Abortion
As well, I believe that they withdraw from ‘the world’ at a time when we need the maximum number of Godly men engaged with the world.
And they do not remain unmarried in accordance with their strength and gifting from God, they take a blasphemous and disobedient permanent vow of unmarriage!
And they pretend it is a ‘vow of celibacy’, thus claiming for themselves something only God can know.
Translating that to a female, you can see that I am, among dozens of other things Christians are called to do: marry, have sex, pop out babies, raise a Godly family, serve as an example, have Godly grandchildren and future generations (ie raise a family in Godliness), …obey your husband, provide for your family, etc etc
This is what makes me uncomfortable with this whole thing. you've basically expanded on making babies, sex, children, grandchildren, raising a family, boils down to the same thing. My role in marriage isn't a job description. you and @incognito, have harped on 1 Cor 7, where it says an unmarried woman is concerned with God and how to be holy in body and spirit, where the married woman cares more about worldly things and how to make her husband happy, doesn't this mean explicitly that avoiding a family, opens one up to MORE devotion to God? And my main argument here - you're limiting Gods will for us to this single point. If someone can't have children or dies before having children or can't find a wife, does their life lose its Godly purpose? As for maximum engagement, well, you treat the church like an army that needs to win a numbers game rather than a body of believers, like we have to have enough babies to outlive or outvote the sinners. Getting political there aren't we? You assume we can breed our way out of the problem? What about the flood? More people doesn't necessarily mean more Godliness. The fruit of the womb is not the same as the fruit of the spirit. There's love, joy peace patience kindness goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. I think that's all of them, none pertain explicitly to making babies, but SELF CONTROL is right there. You seem obsessed with the permanent vow, isn't marriage just such a vow? The bible is predicated on vows, all the vows. And they are all supposed to be permanent, whether they are appropriate at any point or not, else they aren't really vows. Is making vows blasphemous? Or is it this specific vow that's the issue? I can make vows a to a human but not to my Creator? If so you once again claim to know God's will.
>> The fruit of the womb is not the same as the fruit of the spirit.
Well, that's true. But one of the fruits of the spirit is obedience. And one of the fruits of that obedience is children. Or, to put it back in its expanded form: Godly marriage, Godly sex, Popping out babies (I love your expression here), raising them in Godliness, seeing them go down through the generations continuing in Godly seed...
As it is written:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The quick answer is that the vow of 'celibacy' is wrong precisely because the vow of marriage is right. The person who takes the vow of 'celibacy' is cutting themselves off from the vow of marriage. (That is why I call it a vow of 'unmarriage'.) They are claiming to know God's will... that He will never call them to marriage.
(And it is silly even then. If you know God will never call you to marriage, then what good is the vow? And obviously if you think He might, then it is a blasphemous vow.)
>>I think that's all of them, none pertain explicitly to making babies, but SELF CONTROL is right there.
Yes, it is indeed. Now I'm sure you are not going to tell me that married people don't need self-control!
Keeping in mind that the KJV uses the word 'temperance' for that fruit of the spirit here is a fuller exposition:
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You can see here that what your translation calls 'self-control' is not a vow of unmarriage, but a normal part of the progression of the Godly man's life. Beginning with faith and ending in love. They are all things that the married man and woman are called to.
But as for making babies, the Godly woman is, indeed called to that. We see it as well here:
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
That you have the Godly young woman learning to love her husband, lover her children, being discreet, chaste, keeper at home, good and obedient to her own husband. The nun stands in opposition to these things.
>>If someone can't have children or dies before having children or can't find a wife, does their life lose its Godly purpose?
Let me be very clear here: This is contradictory to what I am teaching. The subject were are discussing is a man who takes a vow to be disobedient to God. Who says to God 'even if it is Your will that I marry, I will not do so."
This is in utter contradiction to the woman who, while doing her best to be obedient to God, cannot do so or dies before doing so. The soldier who runs away from the battle and the soldier who dies before the battle is won are neither present at the victory celebration. But for literally opposite reasons. The one is honoured at that celebration, the other cursed.
I would encourage you to look at this statement in the light of the current discussion. I am saying that I can know God's will... because He has written it down. In His Word. And so I go to His Word again and again to see what it says.
But what of the monk? When he makes his vow of unmarriage, is he or isn't he claiming to know God's Will? Cause either way its pretty bad:
1) "I know that God will never call me to marriage." (Not only claiming to know God's Will outside of Scripture, but in that case why the vow?)
2) "I don't know if God will call me to marriage... but I am ruling it out even if He does". Well, that's pretty much the definition of disobedience, eh?
You're reducing God's infinite will to a contract. Tick all the boxes and you get to meet the author. I get what you're doing, you do it in your stories too, but I disagree that that's all there is to it. There are myriad examples in the bible of people who don't tick these boxes. @Incognito could point to who exactly those are. You're making it so a person's value is based on their output, not their faithfulness to THEIR specific, unique path. Your exposition of the rules can be perfect, I'm not saying they are, but you miss the point, which is who those rules point to.
I think the word that you might be searching for is ‘covenant’. God’s will toward us is indeed frequently expressed as a covenant. Violations of God’s will are called ‘disobedience’, among other things.
The problem with the words ‘their separate unique path’ is that they can be taken in two wildly different ways. One of them is found here:
Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
And is exactly what you are trying to say: That God calls different men to different paths. Peter was told he would be martyred… and Jesus said that that didn’t mean it was God’s will for John to be martyred.
But then there is this passage:
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
When I was in high school there was a common theory called ‘situational ethics’. In it even something like adultery was said not to be a sin in certain situations. Yet those situations were pretty much exactly those where Daniel et al went to their death (altho they were not killed, you should read the stories) refusing to disobey God.
I will look forward to your further exegesis of this ‘separate and unique path’ doctrine.
I am probably in over my head here. I am definitely. but I'm sure it will make you happy to know that I actually dug out my bible from where it has been buried in the bookshelf for a year and a bit and looked up john 21:22 and its context and I was pretty chuffed by what I read there. Jesus says and I quote -- "If I want him to live until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" that is the heart of what i am saying. Granted my Good News Bible may arguably be inferior to your KJV but the two versions of the same verse are saying the same thing. If JESUS wants whatshisname to live or die or be a monk, it is not Peter's business nor his place to judge. It is Peter's place to follow Jesus. Full stop. End of order. What I get from this is Jesus told Peter to mind his own business. This is how I justify a personal and unique calling. God reveals his will to each of us in the manner of His choosing, not just through burning bushes and books. His will for each of us can only be known to us through our faith in Him. You can't know God's will for me any more than I can know His will for you. Each of us must figure out what that means for ourselves. So you can't say monks are evil any more than they can say that of you. And to reiterate a previous point I think you've ignored, or at least side stepped. Monks are not monks because they are celibate. Their celibacy is part of their monasticism it is simply part of the deal, being celibate doesn't make you a monk. You can be perfectly celibate without being one. In the same way, we are not Christian because we are married, being married doesn't automatically make you Christian. Or are you saying that you cannot take a vow of devotion to another human without being Christian? Or such a vow does not count as marriage if you're not Christian, because marriage assumes Christianity. Do we need to redefine marriage here? I seem to remember reading something you wrote somewhere along these lines, feel free to refresh my memory or not. What I want to say is there is no one right way to be a Christian, as @Incognito says. Because Jesus says that his plans for me are between He and I alone. And just a little later on the page it says that Jesus did so many things that to list them all would fill all the books in all the world. This tells me that his plans are bigger than the Bible. anyway, I am going to bow out for now, because I really don't know which of you is right at this point. But whoever ends up convincing the other, I think you, well the two of you together, can count this as a win.
Yes, John 21 is very relevant. But unfortunately you are reading it backwards.
In John 21 Christ is telling Peter what His will for Peter is… what He wants Peter to do. He is giving Peter instructions. And, indeed, those instructions are handed down to us.
God tells us what to do all the time. And Scripture is full of Godly men passing on those commands. Saying to one another, “This is what God wants you to do, this is what God doesn’t want you to do.”
In John 21 Peter is wondering if God will call John to be a martyr too. And Christ says that whatever God’s will for John is, it doesn’t affect Peter’s need to follow what God has for Peter to do.
There is no ‘don’t tell anyone what to do’ instruction in Scripture… quite the opposite. What we are doing here, Incogito and I, falls under the ‘Iron sharpens Iron’ category… literally two men discussing the Will of God, the instructions of God.
I have a problem with what you say here. How can I be reading this backwards, when the order of the sentence is literally '...what is it to you' and then 'Follow me!'? you say you want me to 'exegesis' with you, not saying I know what that actually means, but I have come to understand that you argue we should look at what the actual text is saying and it says that Jesus' will for Simon isn't anything to Paul. Paul must follow Jesus. This reminds me of the splinter and the log story. Now I don't mean to be antagonistic here. Sorry, I know I am not qualified to challenge you. I am not claiming to be your equal. And I know I am interfering in YOUR conversation with Incognito by doing this, but I am challenging your assumption that you are qualified to judge others, i.e. monks being evil, on grounds of this verse. This is a public debate, with the option for commentary so I assume the intent was to foster discourse. It feels like you are trying to shut me down, and since I really can't claim to know what I am talking about here, I am going to give you that. Sorry for making waves. I was trying to keep the conversation going since there were no comments.
Ok, first of all, no, you aren’t interfering at all. A thread in the comments section is totally kosher.
Now, lets look at the splinter vs log passage:
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Now, a lot of people focus on the first part of that passage, and totally miss the last part. What are the last words? “then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” IE the entire goal of the passage is that you be able to see clearly enough to help your brother get the speck out of his eye!
And what the passage isn’t saying is that we should each just walk around with whatever in our eyes. The goal of the passage is that both the beam and the speck be gone: ie that both brothers should walk in obedience to God. It isn’t saying that God is OK with whatever we do. Both brothers are doing wrong things, and both need to be corrected!
I'm not saying the bible says monks are godly, I'm saying it says there are exceptions, it says we all have different gifts and purposes, it says its not for you to judge, it says there are different ways to serve, it says God's word is open to interpretation, Jesus shows us this. Jesus, God's own son doesn't tick your boxes. @incognito, weigh in, please.
Well, I’m glad you aren’t saying that monks are Godly. Just to remind you, that is literally where this debate started: with @Incogito saying that they were Godly. Indeed incredibly Godly in a way that protestants should respect and be in awe of kind of thing.
And I can assure you that Jesus ticks all my boxes :) Far from taking a permanent vow of unmarriage, He is betrothed to the church, and we all await that marriage.
(Indeed, I don’t think I have used that particular passage in any of my arguments so far. Thanks for reminding me. I can see a post coming on :) )
Don’t worry @Jenny Homan, I got you covered. I think her point is that there is a minimalist position (which most people would probably ascribe to) that monks represent a legitimate but not special way to live the Christian life. This would get into the “abiblical vs antibiblical” distinction which you don’t like. It would rest on the simple premise that you don’t need to be married or seeking marriage to be a Christian. This carves out a middle position between ours.
I would hesitate to adopt this position in light of 1 Cor. 7 32-35, though I would be open to it with appropriate caveats.
Also, @Von, you might want to consider that your argument about Jesus could equally apply to monks and nuns. Indeed, there are a myriad of martyrs in the early church (Saints Cecilia, Agnes, Felicity, Lucy, Philomena, etc.) who died rather than be married on precisely this justification. The celibacy of monks and nuns is meant to point to their waiting for the wedding feast of the Lamb.
We don’t need to debate the finer point here, but if you want to address it in a post, you will need to establish why the prospect of heavenly marriage uniquely gets Jesus off the hook, but not all the people who look forward to it as his bride.
I think a post on the marriage of the Lamb would be a good one to write. As far as an Earthly justification, indeed if I am reading you correctly it was more than just a justification, since they ‘refused’ to marry not merely taking it as an option, I would be interested in hearing how they exegeted the various commands to marry.
Because we all see there being certain exceptions. The vow of unmarriage is included in none of the exceptions… and certainly no one is going to say that Christ took such a vow. (Well, unless they are relying on unBiblical sources.)
There is a distinction between being unmarried and taking a vow of unmarriage. And, indeed ‘refusing’ to marry. That, too, would seem to be fertile grounds (pun firmly intended) for another post.
But, yes, I don’t think Jenny is arguing for your position. And as she has stated herself, she is not attempting to lay out a Biblical position.
Give me a minute or ten. I'm working on a response here. Life...
i've been working on this for a while, here it is -- First off, I will concede that you make a strong case, but I have a number of issues, and I'd like @incognito 's opinion here if he would be so kind, since I can't hope to accurately quote the scriptures. As stated elsewhere, I don't claim to be any authority on the matter, merely a different viewpoint, so I am willing to accept a reasonable contradiction, but such must foremost be reasonable. 1. the calling - you say that because voluntary celibacy for the sake of prayer and service isn't explicitly excepted, it cannot be justified, and i think you're wrong. It's not celibacy for celibacy's sake but for a reason. and a monk doesn't serve God by being celibate. they sacrifice their sexuality as an offering maybe or its so their heart is undivided or something — What about a person's sacred calling? Do you claim to know God's intent for everyone then? are you saying that because someone feels like they are called to monasticism, they are automatically wrong because that's not a calling? That subjective and personal faith is invalid unless it fits into the prescribed exceptions? What I mean by, always forbidden, on occasion mandatory, -- thinking here, what is the point of the Abraham and Isaac story? Is it that it's never okay to kill your kids, even when God commands it, because he changed his mind? Isn't it that He can sometimes ask things of us that seem contradictory to test our hearts? To see if we are truly commited. So couldn't it be said that He might require some men and/or women to take that vow of celibacy as their personal sacrifice, even if it's hard? Maybe because it's hard. 2. Just because the Bible doesn't specifically say it's okay, doesn't mean it isn't. I want to ask: does the Bible mention internet ministry, youtube videos, or sunday school, or ministry like this via social media? such things obviously didn't exist back then; it doesn't make them wrong or evil now, just because the people who wrote the bible didn't think to include them. What I mean is, there's a massive leap between what is considered normal and what is sinful. Aren't we all meant to serve God according to our given gifts, as you believe you are doing here? If marrying is a blessing because it serves God, not marrying in order to serve God in other ways isn't necessarily sinful. It's not like the only way to serve God is to marry and have kids, even in today's society. There are literally billions of people and they can serve God in billions of ways besides having babies. which brings me to 3. Reproduction and intrinsic value - if I understand correctly, and I may be wrong here, but what i think i read is, you're basically saying that all I am good for is popping out babies for the sake of perpetuating God's kingdom. As a mother, I'm not just a unit of reproduction. Don't I have some intrinsic value as a person and a parent? Is my character and my heart and how I use those for God, worth nothing if I don't make babies? and now 4. Interpretation vs. authority - and this is my main point. -- Who are you to judge? there are scriptures and scriptures about this. You may say it's God's word that is speaking, but I say that it’s your interpretation of God's word that I am seeing and I have issues with it. I am not saying I think you're totally wrong, but that you may be ascribing your personal biases to something that may—and I would argue is supposed to—speak differently to everyone. You're basically saying that marriage and making babies is something we have no choice in, because its normal, because its commanded and because its necessary, regardless of our personal gifts or circumstances, aside from a few strictly limited exceptions. That, in my possibly biased opinion, would make it less of a blessing and more of a burden. I think there's more to it than that. What about the Holy Spirit and God's mysterious ways? By your logic, God is a bureaucrat, and free will is a myth and the only way be biblical is to do exactly and explicitly only as the bible says you may do. I am not arguing whether monks are biblical, i am arguing whether anything about our modern life is. and as such is not being biblical explicitly sinful. It's less about God's standard and more about yours.
Thanks for this. A longer answer later, but some quick comments:
1) I assume from what you say in the beginning that you aren't attempting to make a Scriptural case. Which is fine, it is just a different discussion.
2) I don't see much in here defending the permanent vow of unmarriage... I assume you are not attempting to promote it? You say 'couldn't it be said..." and ask a question about God's motives IF He had said that... but you are not attempting to say that He has said that, right?
Just these two quick comments for now, more later :)
my thanks in return. this has gotten a lot bigger than I thought it would. as for 2. If we are going to reduce the argument again... You're right. I am not promoting a vow of unmarriage, nor do I believe is @Incognito. Defend it sure. I agree with you that it maybe shouldn't be promoted as a universal good, because it's not normal, and the fact that this case is so difficult to make shows that probably shouldn't be. What I am saying, is that just because it's not normal doesn't make it wrong. I am saying that just because it does not exist in the bible, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. I am saying that you cannot claim to know God's motives. I am saying that you are not qualified to judge what is and is not evil. I can't quote verses to you, but I know a good bit. I am asking you to accept that there are exceptions and special cases. To list them all would be exhaustive, so it should be enough to accept that exceptions can be made, even if not explicitly stated. My case being that it does not have to be stated for it to be true. I am asking you to admit that God sometimes asks things of people that seem contradictory or even insane, again to list the possible cases would take forever, but admit that God sometimes seems to break his own rules. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad. God's mysterious ways and all. Accept that The Plan is too big to be contained in a thousand or two thousand pages. You say yourself that FAITH is the point. I also want you to admit that you can't take subjectivity out of faith. It is a subjective and personal thing by nature, unique, based on a relationship. You can't take feelings out of the equation. And God doesn't speak to us like he does to the people in the bible. We have to take it on faith that he communicates in other ways, and those ways are too numerous and unexpected to contain in a book. God's will is bigger than the bible. There's more to this, don't go away.
There is a whole, whole lot to unpack here. But there is one theme that seems to occur over and over and over again that seems to be good to start with. I will call it ‘feelings’, but it goes under several names in this note. Feelings, calling, subjective… there are several of them.
It might take a whole post to talk about this, but in the light of a Scriptural discussion these are all out of bounds. Unless one wishes to begin the argument, “God calls us to follow our feelings” (good luck with that!) then the question needs to be turned to what God wants, God’s Will, God’s Word, God’s plan.
So let’s look at Abraham and Isaac. Are we left wondering what God wanted out of that situation? Or does Scripture speak on the issue?
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Heb 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
So, God gives us the point of the story. By faith.
And that is the point of my argument as well. We best serve God when, by faith, we look to see what He wants us to do. We don’t consult our own feelings, our own calling… we look to Him. We do not bemoan our lot in life, or wonder why He has put us into this or that position… we seek to do His will.
You write:
»you're basically saying that all I am good for is popping out babies for the sake of perpetuating God's kingdom.
And this is literally the opposite of what I am saying. Even in my condemnation of monks I list lots of things, only one of which involves ‘popping out babies’. Let me repost it:
They don’t marry
They don’t have sex
They don’t have children
They don’t raise a Godly family
They don’t serve as an example for other young men and women
They don’t have Godly grandchildren and future generations
These things are especially problematic in today’s age, where
We have so few Christians marrying
They are marrying late
They are not having children (let alone a full quiver)
They are not raising Godly families
Sodomy
Transgender
Abortion
As well, I believe that they withdraw from ‘the world’ at a time when we need the maximum number of Godly men engaged with the world.
And they do not remain unmarried in accordance with their strength and gifting from God, they take a blasphemous and disobedient permanent vow of unmarriage!
And they pretend it is a ‘vow of celibacy’, thus claiming for themselves something only God can know.
Translating that to a female, you can see that I am, among dozens of other things Christians are called to do: marry, have sex, pop out babies, raise a Godly family, serve as an example, have Godly grandchildren and future generations (ie raise a family in Godliness), …obey your husband, provide for your family, etc etc
This is what makes me uncomfortable with this whole thing. you've basically expanded on making babies, sex, children, grandchildren, raising a family, boils down to the same thing. My role in marriage isn't a job description. you and @incognito, have harped on 1 Cor 7, where it says an unmarried woman is concerned with God and how to be holy in body and spirit, where the married woman cares more about worldly things and how to make her husband happy, doesn't this mean explicitly that avoiding a family, opens one up to MORE devotion to God? And my main argument here - you're limiting Gods will for us to this single point. If someone can't have children or dies before having children or can't find a wife, does their life lose its Godly purpose? As for maximum engagement, well, you treat the church like an army that needs to win a numbers game rather than a body of believers, like we have to have enough babies to outlive or outvote the sinners. Getting political there aren't we? You assume we can breed our way out of the problem? What about the flood? More people doesn't necessarily mean more Godliness. The fruit of the womb is not the same as the fruit of the spirit. There's love, joy peace patience kindness goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. I think that's all of them, none pertain explicitly to making babies, but SELF CONTROL is right there. You seem obsessed with the permanent vow, isn't marriage just such a vow? The bible is predicated on vows, all the vows. And they are all supposed to be permanent, whether they are appropriate at any point or not, else they aren't really vows. Is making vows blasphemous? Or is it this specific vow that's the issue? I can make vows a to a human but not to my Creator? If so you once again claim to know God's will.
You write:
>> The fruit of the womb is not the same as the fruit of the spirit.
Well, that's true. But one of the fruits of the spirit is obedience. And one of the fruits of that obedience is children. Or, to put it back in its expanded form: Godly marriage, Godly sex, Popping out babies (I love your expression here), raising them in Godliness, seeing them go down through the generations continuing in Godly seed...
As it is written:
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
You write:
>>Or is it this specific vow that's the issue? I can make vows a to a human but not to my Creator?
I did specifically deal with this question, actually. Here is the link:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/i/181039594/the-contradictory-binding
The quick answer is that the vow of 'celibacy' is wrong precisely because the vow of marriage is right. The person who takes the vow of 'celibacy' is cutting themselves off from the vow of marriage. (That is why I call it a vow of 'unmarriage'.) They are claiming to know God's will... that He will never call them to marriage.
(And it is silly even then. If you know God will never call you to marriage, then what good is the vow? And obviously if you think He might, then it is a blasphemous vow.)
You write:
>>I think that's all of them, none pertain explicitly to making babies, but SELF CONTROL is right there.
Yes, it is indeed. Now I'm sure you are not going to tell me that married people don't need self-control!
Keeping in mind that the KJV uses the word 'temperance' for that fruit of the spirit here is a fuller exposition:
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You can see here that what your translation calls 'self-control' is not a vow of unmarriage, but a normal part of the progression of the Godly man's life. Beginning with faith and ending in love. They are all things that the married man and woman are called to.
But as for making babies, the Godly woman is, indeed called to that. We see it as well here:
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
That you have the Godly young woman learning to love her husband, lover her children, being discreet, chaste, keeper at home, good and obedient to her own husband. The nun stands in opposition to these things.
You write:
>>If someone can't have children or dies before having children or can't find a wife, does their life lose its Godly purpose?
Let me be very clear here: This is contradictory to what I am teaching. The subject were are discussing is a man who takes a vow to be disobedient to God. Who says to God 'even if it is Your will that I marry, I will not do so."
This is in utter contradiction to the woman who, while doing her best to be obedient to God, cannot do so or dies before doing so. The soldier who runs away from the battle and the soldier who dies before the battle is won are neither present at the victory celebration. But for literally opposite reasons. The one is honoured at that celebration, the other cursed.
You write:
>>If so you once again claim to know God's will.
I would encourage you to look at this statement in the light of the current discussion. I am saying that I can know God's will... because He has written it down. In His Word. And so I go to His Word again and again to see what it says.
But what of the monk? When he makes his vow of unmarriage, is he or isn't he claiming to know God's Will? Cause either way its pretty bad:
1) "I know that God will never call me to marriage." (Not only claiming to know God's Will outside of Scripture, but in that case why the vow?)
2) "I don't know if God will call me to marriage... but I am ruling it out even if He does". Well, that's pretty much the definition of disobedience, eh?
You're reducing God's infinite will to a contract. Tick all the boxes and you get to meet the author. I get what you're doing, you do it in your stories too, but I disagree that that's all there is to it. There are myriad examples in the bible of people who don't tick these boxes. @Incognito could point to who exactly those are. You're making it so a person's value is based on their output, not their faithfulness to THEIR specific, unique path. Your exposition of the rules can be perfect, I'm not saying they are, but you miss the point, which is who those rules point to.
I think the word that you might be searching for is ‘covenant’. God’s will toward us is indeed frequently expressed as a covenant. Violations of God’s will are called ‘disobedience’, among other things.
The problem with the words ‘their separate unique path’ is that they can be taken in two wildly different ways. One of them is found here:
Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jhn 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
And is exactly what you are trying to say: That God calls different men to different paths. Peter was told he would be martyred… and Jesus said that that didn’t mean it was God’s will for John to be martyred.
But then there is this passage:
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
When I was in high school there was a common theory called ‘situational ethics’. In it even something like adultery was said not to be a sin in certain situations. Yet those situations were pretty much exactly those where Daniel et al went to their death (altho they were not killed, you should read the stories) refusing to disobey God.
I will look forward to your further exegesis of this ‘separate and unique path’ doctrine.
I am probably in over my head here. I am definitely. but I'm sure it will make you happy to know that I actually dug out my bible from where it has been buried in the bookshelf for a year and a bit and looked up john 21:22 and its context and I was pretty chuffed by what I read there. Jesus says and I quote -- "If I want him to live until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" that is the heart of what i am saying. Granted my Good News Bible may arguably be inferior to your KJV but the two versions of the same verse are saying the same thing. If JESUS wants whatshisname to live or die or be a monk, it is not Peter's business nor his place to judge. It is Peter's place to follow Jesus. Full stop. End of order. What I get from this is Jesus told Peter to mind his own business. This is how I justify a personal and unique calling. God reveals his will to each of us in the manner of His choosing, not just through burning bushes and books. His will for each of us can only be known to us through our faith in Him. You can't know God's will for me any more than I can know His will for you. Each of us must figure out what that means for ourselves. So you can't say monks are evil any more than they can say that of you. And to reiterate a previous point I think you've ignored, or at least side stepped. Monks are not monks because they are celibate. Their celibacy is part of their monasticism it is simply part of the deal, being celibate doesn't make you a monk. You can be perfectly celibate without being one. In the same way, we are not Christian because we are married, being married doesn't automatically make you Christian. Or are you saying that you cannot take a vow of devotion to another human without being Christian? Or such a vow does not count as marriage if you're not Christian, because marriage assumes Christianity. Do we need to redefine marriage here? I seem to remember reading something you wrote somewhere along these lines, feel free to refresh my memory or not. What I want to say is there is no one right way to be a Christian, as @Incognito says. Because Jesus says that his plans for me are between He and I alone. And just a little later on the page it says that Jesus did so many things that to list them all would fill all the books in all the world. This tells me that his plans are bigger than the Bible. anyway, I am going to bow out for now, because I really don't know which of you is right at this point. But whoever ends up convincing the other, I think you, well the two of you together, can count this as a win.
Yes, John 21 is very relevant. But unfortunately you are reading it backwards.
In John 21 Christ is telling Peter what His will for Peter is… what He wants Peter to do. He is giving Peter instructions. And, indeed, those instructions are handed down to us.
God tells us what to do all the time. And Scripture is full of Godly men passing on those commands. Saying to one another, “This is what God wants you to do, this is what God doesn’t want you to do.”
In John 21 Peter is wondering if God will call John to be a martyr too. And Christ says that whatever God’s will for John is, it doesn’t affect Peter’s need to follow what God has for Peter to do.
There is no ‘don’t tell anyone what to do’ instruction in Scripture… quite the opposite. What we are doing here, Incogito and I, falls under the ‘Iron sharpens Iron’ category… literally two men discussing the Will of God, the instructions of God.
I have a problem with what you say here. How can I be reading this backwards, when the order of the sentence is literally '...what is it to you' and then 'Follow me!'? you say you want me to 'exegesis' with you, not saying I know what that actually means, but I have come to understand that you argue we should look at what the actual text is saying and it says that Jesus' will for Simon isn't anything to Paul. Paul must follow Jesus. This reminds me of the splinter and the log story. Now I don't mean to be antagonistic here. Sorry, I know I am not qualified to challenge you. I am not claiming to be your equal. And I know I am interfering in YOUR conversation with Incognito by doing this, but I am challenging your assumption that you are qualified to judge others, i.e. monks being evil, on grounds of this verse. This is a public debate, with the option for commentary so I assume the intent was to foster discourse. It feels like you are trying to shut me down, and since I really can't claim to know what I am talking about here, I am going to give you that. Sorry for making waves. I was trying to keep the conversation going since there were no comments.
Ok, first of all, no, you aren’t interfering at all. A thread in the comments section is totally kosher.
Now, lets look at the splinter vs log passage:
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Now, a lot of people focus on the first part of that passage, and totally miss the last part. What are the last words? “then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” IE the entire goal of the passage is that you be able to see clearly enough to help your brother get the speck out of his eye!
And what the passage isn’t saying is that we should each just walk around with whatever in our eyes. The goal of the passage is that both the beam and the speck be gone: ie that both brothers should walk in obedience to God. It isn’t saying that God is OK with whatever we do. Both brothers are doing wrong things, and both need to be corrected!
I'll let you think about this for a minute before I tell you why it made me laugh so hard.
I'm not saying the bible says monks are godly, I'm saying it says there are exceptions, it says we all have different gifts and purposes, it says its not for you to judge, it says there are different ways to serve, it says God's word is open to interpretation, Jesus shows us this. Jesus, God's own son doesn't tick your boxes. @incognito, weigh in, please.
Well, I’m glad you aren’t saying that monks are Godly. Just to remind you, that is literally where this debate started: with @Incogito saying that they were Godly. Indeed incredibly Godly in a way that protestants should respect and be in awe of kind of thing.
And I can assure you that Jesus ticks all my boxes :) Far from taking a permanent vow of unmarriage, He is betrothed to the church, and we all await that marriage.
(Indeed, I don’t think I have used that particular passage in any of my arguments so far. Thanks for reminding me. I can see a post coming on :) )
Don’t worry @Jenny Homan, I got you covered. I think her point is that there is a minimalist position (which most people would probably ascribe to) that monks represent a legitimate but not special way to live the Christian life. This would get into the “abiblical vs antibiblical” distinction which you don’t like. It would rest on the simple premise that you don’t need to be married or seeking marriage to be a Christian. This carves out a middle position between ours.
I would hesitate to adopt this position in light of 1 Cor. 7 32-35, though I would be open to it with appropriate caveats.
Also, @Von, you might want to consider that your argument about Jesus could equally apply to monks and nuns. Indeed, there are a myriad of martyrs in the early church (Saints Cecilia, Agnes, Felicity, Lucy, Philomena, etc.) who died rather than be married on precisely this justification. The celibacy of monks and nuns is meant to point to their waiting for the wedding feast of the Lamb.
We don’t need to debate the finer point here, but if you want to address it in a post, you will need to establish why the prospect of heavenly marriage uniquely gets Jesus off the hook, but not all the people who look forward to it as his bride.
“Off the hook” eh?
I think a post on the marriage of the Lamb would be a good one to write. As far as an Earthly justification, indeed if I am reading you correctly it was more than just a justification, since they ‘refused’ to marry not merely taking it as an option, I would be interested in hearing how they exegeted the various commands to marry.
Because we all see there being certain exceptions. The vow of unmarriage is included in none of the exceptions… and certainly no one is going to say that Christ took such a vow. (Well, unless they are relying on unBiblical sources.)
There is a distinction between being unmarried and taking a vow of unmarriage. And, indeed ‘refusing’ to marry. That, too, would seem to be fertile grounds (pun firmly intended) for another post.
But, yes, I don’t think Jenny is arguing for your position. And as she has stated herself, she is not attempting to lay out a Biblical position.
This has been incredibly fun. Thanks @von and @incognito. I look forward to your further arguments.