Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hank | 6951 | ||
Steve, Titus 1:6 no more supports your belief than 1 Tim. 3:2 does. Read both passages within their full context. And Paul was not a leader because he traveled? Surely you can't mean what you said! Paul, personally chosen by the Risen Christ. Paul, the apostle whom Christ entrusted to take His precious gospel to the Gentiles. Paul, who wrote more books of the Bible than any other man on earth. Paul, whose words you are using to try to prove your case. Paul not a leader?...... Look at Titus 1:6 again. Look at the phrase "having children who believe." If we go with your view that a church leader must be a married man, "the husband of one wife," we must, to be consistent, teach that he must also have children. Steve, the Scriptures simply don't support your view. I challenge you to present this forum with a single credible Bible scholar, with just one responsible New Testament exegetist, who supports your view.........By the way, here's what the NASB Study Bible has to say on Titus 1:6: "husband of one wife" -- Since elders, by definition, were chosen from among the older men of the congregation, Paul assumed they already would be married and have children. A qualified unmarried man was not necessarily barred. It is also improbable that the standard forbids an elder to remarry if his wife dies (cf Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor.7:39, 1 Tim.5:14). The most likely meaning is simply that a faithful, monogamous married life must be maintained. Your turn, Steve. Bring on your witnesses. --Hank | ||||||
2 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6972 | ||
Hank: After reading many of the views presented at StudyBibleForum.com, I have concluded that the next time someone opens a Christian theme park, it should include Fantasyland. Then all the posters here who get direct revelation from God and ignore the teachers that Christ has given to the church will feel right at home. Moreover, they that are unlearned and unstable, who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, don't need a credible Bible scholar or any other support for their fantasies, I mean beliefs. |
||||||
3 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6974 | ||
I think this response is a little harsh and maybe even wrong if it was directed, as I suspect, at Steve. I asked a question awhile back in the forum “Should the Bible be taken literally?” Nearly everyone wanted to place a qualifier to my question. No one that I recall would give a black and white answer except Steve. Yet scripture tells us to let our yea be yea and nay’s be nay. (For everyone that is ready to jump, yes, I know I took this out of context, bear with me a moment). I belong to a denomination that allows men that were convicted murderers to become ordained ministers, provided they committed the murder before they were saved. However no divorced man can ever be a Pastor. No matter if the divorce happened before salvation or not. I always thought that to be wrong or at least unfair. I was talking about my feelings on this subject to a man one day and he said, “Yes in man’s eyes that is categorically unfair, however God has an excellent reason for insisting on the standards He did. If we do what seems right in our eyes we are weakening what God intended. God’s standards are much higher than ours, His ways are different than ours, His ways are always right.” “Maybe too much of man’s “fairness” has gotten into the church and that may be one of the reasons the church instead of being the dominate force of society it was meant to be, finds itself defending its every move.” There was wisdom in that man’s response! I’m not ready to take everything quite as literally as Steve does, but open your thought process, is there not some validity in what Steve is saying? Could it be God has a reason why He wanted a man that was to be the leader of a local body to know exactly what is was like to have a wife and children? So that man could have real compassion and understanding of marital problems or what it is really like to have kids. To hear the person you love most in the world standing before you with their little twisted up faces and shout I hate you. The argument that Paul wasn’t married and didn’t have kids, I don't think stands here. He was an Apostle on a mission not a pastor of a local work. Also we have made being a pastor a profession rather than a calling. We in our human wisdom say should a man not be allowed to follow his chosen profession just because he never married? May be we should. Maybe the man himself should reexamine what it is God has called him to do. Maybe he was called to be a teacher, missionary, an evangelist, social worker, and the list goes on. Think about this discussion. If we rightly divide the scripture is it all wrong to take the Bible literally? Throughout history every society or age has placed it’s assumed meaning to Bible passages. The results of this many times has been far less than desirable and many times even disastrous. Is it time we get back to where God is? Where is that, some may ask? May it be in the literal interpretation of the bible? Is it all wrong to hold a pastor’s calling in such high esteem that not every person is qualifies? If your going to respond to this question please respond to the questions I asked and points I made not to the examples I used. I intended no offense by anything I said, please take none. Be blessed and be a blessing |
||||||
4 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Morant61 | 6978 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is nothing wrong with taking the Bible literally. The problem is that we often read things into the Bible that aren't there. Taking the Bible literally simply means to take the Bible for what it actally says, not what we think it is saying. For instance, in the current thread, the debate is over the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:2. There is nothing in the verse that says an overseer must be married. The word 'marriage or married' is never used in the passage. However, many have interpreted a phrase that basically means "faithful to his wife" as meaning marriage is a qualification for service. Notice that verse 3 says that he must not be a lover of money. Are we then to say that an overseer must have money? How about v. 4, which deals with children? Must an overseer also have children in order to lead? I agree with one of JVHO212's posts, here he made the case that the issue is not marital status, but the moral conduct of the leaders. I do appreciate the reminder to watch our tone in the debates we engage in. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6982 | ||
Please excuse me I’m not trying to be argumentative. If God was conveying the idea, as many suggest, that elder must have sexual purity or at least the lack of immorality, don’t you think He would have said that? God has no problem conveying the idea of sexual purity in Revelation chapter 21 for instance. Instead the scriptures say he should be the husband of one wife. Again not wanting to split hairs how does one become the husband of a woman without marriage? See what has happened? In an effort to explain God we really have changed what he said. I think there are two qualifications here, one the man is to be a husband. Two he is to have sexual purity in his marriage. I know most people disagree with this, and we have men and women filling the position that are single, married, divorced, remarried, and etc. Again can I submit a point for thought, could this be the reason the church today doesn’t hold the place it once did? Is the church sending the wrong message to the world? Has the church suggested that compromise is okay? As to the example using the money issue. I know many poor people or people without money that are lovers of money. But I don’t know any husbands without wives. Please excuse the sarcasm but I hope it would make you think. |
||||||
6 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hank | 6985 | ||
I have thought, EdB, and I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that you are reading far more into the passage than the passage was ever intended to say. That is a flaw to which we are, most of us at any rate, heir to by virtue of being imperfect human beings. Tim Moran has recently posted a wise observation about this business of reading more into a text than is there to read. EdB, I confess frankly and openly that in a score of years of trying to teach a Sunday School class, I've done that not just once, but many times. And I'm not bragging, but stating a fact! All good wishes in Christ Jesus. --Hank | ||||||
7 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6993 | ||
Hank thanks for showing compassion on me by your kind words. But I have a question. How do you get around the words husband and wife? I might be reading something into this but in my humble mind husband and wife suggest marriage, shouldn't it? | ||||||