Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How would you translate it?
No, all of that was meant to be implied in what I was saying all along. It's all missing the wood for the trees. Treating a discussion about the sort of person an elder needs to be as a formula; an illustration as a completely arbitrary check list. Thinly disguised legalism at its worst.
Good on him for living what he believed, but he still seems to be completely missing the point of the text - missing the wood for the trees. Though I would have thought he would have to resign when she died, not when he married again.
Presumably he had children who were believers?
No, one who looks to the bible for a set of rules rather than one for what it is.Legalist = one who believes the Bible
That's what it ends up being, yes. It goes from a text trying to lead ones thoughts to the kinds of virtues one is looking for in a pastor, to check-list of completely arbitrary attributes.And he did have believing children. Hid daughter was in my congregation as an adult.
"arbitrary check list" ...How conveeeennnnient.
So according to you, one can't be an elder unless he has children (who must also be faithful)?
Can you find a serious scholarly commentator who thinks those texts must be read that way?
What do you mean, "according to you"? Did I say anything or did I quote scripture?
Awesome Video. It seems as if more is being said in it than meets the eye at first glance. I'll need to study it more and meditate on it. Especially the ending, please read a little further yourself sister. Thank you for the video.
If faith is the Rock then Faith can move mountains, even old teaching that should be left in the Dark ages.
I prefer the term why i should be a Christian instead.
We are all Christians but the non believers and weaker Christians don't see it that way. They receive A Stumbling block instead of a Rock
I assume you hold to the idea that "Scripture interprets Scripture" - let's look at the parallel passage in Titus.
Look at what it's saying...he goes into a town and finds an upright man - above reproach, married to only one wife, etc. What are the requirements, though? Again, Paul reiterates, he MUST be above reproach. Next, he MUST be the husband of one wife, right? Wait, no, Paul skips right over that! He goes straight to the other requirements - not arrogant, not a drunkard, upright, etc.
How?you misinterpreted scripture
How?
What is the correct interpretation?
Because, up until now, no one actually gave me another interpretation, they started posing grammar rules so that the verses would read differently so that it could go inline with what the Catholic church have done.
How?
What is the correct interpretation?
Because, up until now, no one actually gave me another interpretation, they started posing grammar rules so that the verses would read differently so that it could go inline with what the Catholic church have done.
HOW is it an assumption when it continues saying "that his children must be in submission to him in reverence and that he must be able to rule his own house well"?Your whole argument depends on the assumption that the "must" of the first clause continues through the remainder of the clauses. This is an assumption, for there is no linguistic principle that says so.
The qualifications begans in verse 6. In verse 5 Paul tells Timothy to appoint elders in every city IF A MAN is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination.If Scripture is ever ambiguous, we must always let Scripture interpret Scripture. Fortunately for our purposes, this passage actually does have a direct parallel in Titus 1, which reads:
You can see here for yourself that Paul speaks unambiguously. Where the word order in 1 Timothy 3 is unclear and could go either way, the word order in Titus 1 is quite clear. "[T]he husband of one wife" is not "he must be the husband of one wife." The "must" is only attached to "be above reproach." Therefore we know, with certainty, from the very words of Scripture and the same author talking with the same words on the same topic, that the "must" does not continue through the successive series of qualifications, but only applies to being "above reproach."
Invalid....because you say so?Now, what "the husband of one wife" (or "a man of one woman") means exactly, that we can debate. But your argument on the basis of a statement "he must be the husband of one wife" (a statement that we now know does not exist) is absolutely invalid.
It doesn't matter if they NEVER TOOK A WIFE because we are not told that Paul or James were elders. We know that Paul was an apostle but being an apostle was not conditioned of whether one was married, however being an elder is. For an elder have to shepherd the flock of God.Now what does it mean to be "a man of one woman" or "the husband of one wife"? Is that opposed to two or more, or opposed to zero? Given the Paul himself never took a wife and that we know from Josephus that James, pastor of the Jerusalem church, never took a wife, I think it is clearly a prohibition against polygamy and remarriage, not against celibacy.
You do realize that you jumped into a conversation about elders?1, getting married has nothing to do with this thread
Why did you jump into this conversation?2, there are catholics priests that are married so what are you arguing about
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?