Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 6920 | ||
Steve, I'm having trouble with a part of your answer to PSP's question, "What does 1 Tim. 3:2 mean?" In the final paragraph of your answer you say, "I believe the pastor or deacon should be married. So if he is single, widowed, or divorced, he is disqualified." In the first place, if you are referring to the passage in the question, i.e., 1 Tim. 3:2, the qualifications of a bishop (or elder) are under consideration, not pastors or deacons. And for the bishop, the qualification is that he be monogamous -- a one-woman man. The passage is assuming rather than stipulating that the bishop would be a married man. Do you have any corroborating Scripture to support your statement that a pastor or a deacon is disqualifed solely on grounds that he happens to be single, widowed, or divorced? What about the writer of this letter, Paul? He certainly was a church leader par excellence. Was he married? When the wife of a pastor of a church dies leaving him a widower, is he then disqualified to serve the church as pastor? If an elder's wife runs away with the postman and a divorce results, does the elder for this reason become disqualifed to serve? Steve, I sincerely feel that your answer needs more authority than what it gets from the assertion "I believe...." -- Hank | ||||||
2 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Searcher56 | 6942 | ||
Hank, Titus 1:6 also supports my belief that a leader should be married, to one woman. Paul was never the permanent church leader, he moved on. So I do not think he fell under the title of being a leader. Also, by the text, I think a widower could be DQed from being a leader ... but I am not going to demand my way. I would be more vocal if the wife (who is a Christian) ran away with the postman and a divorce results. She would have to say she wasn't a Christian for him to be able to serve. Steve |
||||||
3 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6946 | ||
Steve, once again you are reading the text way too literally here and missing the meaning altogether! Does not Paul wish that every man could be as he is (single)? (1 Corinthians 7:7) Since it was true that Paul was single (and so was Jesus), then does this disqualify Paul from being a true leader of the church? By no means! Then Paul would be disabasing himself, since he was the one that spoke those words in the book of Titus! Would Ezra or Nehemiah not be considered as leaders, since there is no mention of their wives in either of the books that bear their names? And they led the nation of Israel to rebuild the temple. Jesus, the ultimate leader, lived a life of celibacy. Is He therefore, not qualified for leadership, being the very Son of God? Was Paul not speaking of his leadership and apostleship while in imprisonment (Phil. 1:12-14, 2:12,14) even though he himself was single? I fear that you have once again misinterpreted a verse with a point of view that is way too literal to be able to derive the true meaning from the text.I am a single man and a leader in my church! And my witness or ministry is not restrained whatsoever by the fact that I am single. In fact, I can do many things that would be difficult for a married couple to do at the drop of a hat, since I only have to answer to one Person, my Lord, and follow Him as a Godly man. | ||||||
4 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Searcher56 | 6970 | ||
I read the Bible literally. - Paul was not the leader of a single church, so this does not apply to him. He wrote Phillipinas while in prison. Someone else was in chargge. - Jesus is married to the church If you use the OT for examples ... what day do you gather together with belivers ... do you tithe as the Teknah dictates (3 of them). BTW, it dose not say if Ezra or Nehemiah were not married. This is a minor point - I will carry one no more. |
||||||
5 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6976 | ||
Steve, after reading your response, all I have to say is "WHAT?" My point still stands and you haven't even begun to answer the half of it.Steve, do you honestly think that people can take you seriously after what you wrote?This is exactly the type of thing that is proving to be a 'cancer' for the Forum. People who post things that are not biblically based or who hold to their opinions rather than Scripture. All you fellow members out there, please don't hold or continue in this example- of pressing your non-biblical opinions or just arguing for the sake of arguing- and provide some good, Bible based, sound answers to good questions. I feel that in every good post or question that has been maligned in some fashion by someone who has infused their own misinterpretation into the topic, the one who originally wrote the post must be apologized to by the one who has engendered such debate that is so far removed from the discussion at hand. And in this case, so far in left field that it reaches beyond the dugout.Please don't take this too much as a 'slam', Steve, but as 'positive criticism', and I hope that this would bear fruit. | ||||||