Single Bishops?

[heavensangelwv]

Thats not "hyper literal" at all, that is precisely what it says. If you cannot believe what the Bible says plainly then we cannot trust it at all.

No it is a hyper liberal reading that inserts the thought "if".

I said nothing of the sort. You have created a nice straw-man for yourself, but you have failed to prove your case. Single people have a role in ministry, just not as an Elders or a Deacons. Missionaries, Teachers, and small group leaders just to name a few.


Nevertheless you cannot get around the word "must". It is simple grammar.



Why is it so important for you to insert "if"?

To all "if" instead of "must" people.

How does this threatens your faith? Is your pastor single, or perhaps female. If it gets your dander up perhaps you should consider changing your condition, because no matter what you do Paul says "must" not "if", and that is not going to change by your contention.

God Bless,

Robert

Are you implying that God cannot show Himself through someone who is single? He cannot call someone who has not yet been married? We cannot be used in the way that God sees fit if we are not married? Actually, my Bible says men who are not married have more desire to please the Lord than men who are married. My faith is not hindered by a single pastor. Is yours?

I Corinthians 7
2But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

 

[Lionroot]

Are you implying that God cannot show Himself through someone who is single?

Not at all.

He cannot call someone who has not yet been married?

Sure He can, however He will not call him to be an Bishop or a Deacon. Because he does not meet His requirements.

We cannot be used in the way that God sees fit if we are not married?

God has made plain how He sees fit, and He desires that a Bishop or Deacon be married.

Actually, my Bible says men who are not married have more desire to please the Lord than men who are married.

So does mine, but our Bibles both say that an Bishop must be a husband, and to be judged by how well he runs his house. You are not considering the full counsel of God on this matter.

My faith is not hindered by a single pastor. Is yours?

Just my faith in such a Pastor. I wouldn't submit to a church leader that had such a disregard for the Word. Instead I will submit to God in whom I have my faith.

I Corinthians 7
2But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

One scripture does not usurp another. You have to consider the whole counsel of God on any matter. If we start sliding "understood ifs" in everywhere we might as well write our own Bible.

This verse from Corinthians doesn't usurp the meaning of the text in 1 Timothy. The verse in 1st Timothy does not impeach single men. There are only so many Bishop positions available in a Church, and God told us what to look for in an Bishop.

Maybe you do not agree with Him but they are God's qualifications.

God Bless,

Robert

P.S. BTW how many Bishops does your Church have anyway?

 

[Jenniewren]

pastors, elders, deacons, teachers etc appear in the Bible. Where do Bishops married or single come from?

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

First of all, we have to consider the time period that this was written in. It was not uncommon for men to have more than one wife. Paul was simply saying that if you are to become a bishop, you can have no more than one wife. It is not saying you have to be married.

Roman culture didn't practice men having plural wives. Historians do say that many women frequently went from one husband to another, but Roman men having plural wives is almost completely unknown. The Jews were the oddities in the Roman empire with some of them having plural wives. To the Roman, that may have seemed nomadic rather than culturally refined.

So, to assume that Paul was speaking in terms of polygyny, he was addressing a culture of Gentile, Roman citizens who didn't practice that anyway. To say that it wasn't uncommon is to inject that which is contrary to what we do know about the period and the people of that region.

BTW&DM