so you know more than the pope?

[Yarddog]

For you, but what about others who need the Lord?

They can find the same love that I found.

Pope, mary.... Why would you put all this garbage on a new believer?

No garbage. Just love. Most Non-Catholics don't know of what they are talking about when they speak of Catholic teaching. Heck, most Catholics don't either.

We don't worry about the Pope, Mary, Peter, etc... They can take care of themselves. We come together and worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I must go now.

Have a good evening.

 

[godisreal36]

Well i disagree. But God is control and I'm sorry about the garbage comment, it was out of line.

 

[simonthezealot]

That translation is kind of funky - I'd like to see the context there, because there seems to be an agent missing. The translation has "exalted" as a participle, but "exaltavit" is a perfect active indicative. The more literal translation would be "he raised him to not be a chaste man" - as you can see, it's not clear who the agent and the object are.

In the link attached it shows the full context under item 1.
the error was mine it should have been
Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei Vicarius

 

[Melethiel]

In the link attached it shows the full context under item 1.
the error was mine it should have been
Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei Vicarius

Well, you've misquoted what it actually says. Here's what's under item 1:

Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus et Vicarius Dei; [quotes the "You are Peter" passage and its Gloss - the Gloss reads: Id, quod ipse erat, scilicet petra, voluit eam vocari Petrum]

Translation: The Pope is of so great dignity and height, to be not a simple man, but as though God and the Vicar of God.
Gloss: It, because he himself was certainly a rock, willed him to be called Peter

 

[ebia]

For you, but what about others who need the Lord?

Pope, mary.... Why would you put all this stuff on a new believer?

They don't, any more than a Presbytarian congregation expects a new believer to fully grasp the history of the reformation and be able to produce an analysis of Institutes of the Christian Religion.

In any Christian tradition there is a more than a lifetime's learning to be had, and in all the worthwhile ones one starts from the simplest understanding of Jesus, his life death and resurrection, and gradually go from there to understand more and more and in greater and greater depth.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Does God allow us to be celibate?

I'm not going to press this issue, because it's clear that you don't want to see it any other way than your preconceived notion, regardless of what the text actually says.

You know what really is tiresome, people who assume that I don't want to know what God's word said.

I have read the scripture, tirelessly and the "other way" you are providing is actually going against what that scripture is saying.
When you quoted me about elders, you made it a point to say that the bible does not say "MUST BE" married, in your post #326. But I pointed out that in 1 Timothy 3:2 when the bible say that one "must be" blameless, husband of one wife, that automatically mean that they must be married. How exactly can someone be the husband of one wife but not married?


This is how I am viewing your "rebuttal" if I am wrong, you can correct me:
You assume that "must be" is only attached to the word "blameless" and that "husband of one wife" seems to mean IF he is married than he must be the husband of one wife. That's the problem. "If" is conditional, but those qualifications for eldership that are stated in 1 Timothy 3 are not conditional. He must be the husband of one wife. The bible goes on to tell us "one who rules his own house well." How can someone rule his own house, if he is single? The husband should rule his family home, well and that includes his wife and kids. A single man is automatically disqualified because he does not meet the qualifications for eldership.

Think of those qualifications as boxes that must be checked off (legalism, yeah I understand, but for this purpose it works). Let's look at those qualifications in Titus:

Titus 1:5-9
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--
If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.​

Now, before someone automatically shut there ears to everything I've said because you see the word "if" in there, let me say this: Read that verse again, that "if" is not a conditional if, it's not "if you find this type of man, than good but here are other exceptions" that "if" is more as "if you find this type of man than he need to be an elder, if they are not found with this qualities then keep looking."

read it again in the context:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination....​

And these qualities are to set the man apart from the others in verses 10-16

You may disregard grammar, but in reading a text, grammar is everything (especially in Greek). Look at it this way...if I say that you are allowed to have "ONLY one car", do you take that to mean you can't have more than one car, or do you take that to mean you MUST have one car?

I disregarded your opinion of that grammar because it actually had no barring on the verse, because that phrase "husband of one wife" is not conditional. It is a qualification that he has be married.

The problem with your analysis is this:
While you say that I am "allowed to have "ONLY one car", whether it means I have a car or not, I am not getting a service out of it. If you say that I am "allowed" to have ONLY one car, it can mean that "If I have a car, I must only have one" or that "I don't have to have a car". But that "if" becomes conditional. But the bible does not say "a husband is "allowed" to only have one wife"...it says "he must be blameless, husband of one wife." There is no allowance in that clause. He must...so therefore if he does not, he is disqualified.

Now, if your whole entire argument was based on the idea that I said "it is not Paul that allows us to be married but God" I meant that when you posted that Paul allowed us to be married and I wanted to point out that it is not Paul who allows, it is God. Paul does not command us to do something or not do something, it is God. God allows us stay unmarried for those who can and He allow us to be married. But unmarried or married, there is no difference in Christ. But when men are to take on an eldership role, that role is reserved for a certain kind of man who meet the qualifications. It does not make them better or worse than anyone, it simply mean the role is eldership is reserved for those who meet the qualifications.

 

[ebia]

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?

 

[Melethiel]

This is how I am viewing your "rebuttal" if I am wrong, you can correct me:
You assume that "must be" is only attached to the word "blameless" and that "husband of one wife" seems to mean IF he is married than he must be the husband of one wife. That's the problem.

I assume you hold to the idea that "Scripture interprets Scripture" - let's look at the parallel passage in Titus.

5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

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.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You know what really is tiresome, people who assume that I don't want to know what God's word said.

I have read the scripture, tirelessly and the "other way" you are providing is actually going against what that scripture is saying.
When you quoted me about elders, you made it a point to say that the bible does not say "MUST BE" married, in your post #326. But I pointed out that in 1 Timothy 3:2 when the bible say that one "must be" blameless, husband of one wife, that automatically mean that they must be married. How exactly can someone be the husband of one wife but not married?


This is how I am viewing your "rebuttal" if I am wrong, you can correct me:
You assume that "must be" is only attached to the word "blameless" and that "husband of one wife" seems to mean IF he is married than he must be the husband of one wife. That's the problem. "If" is conditional, but those qualifications for eldership that are stated in 1 Timothy 3 are not conditional. He must be the husband of one wife. The bible goes on to tell us "one who rules his own house well." How can someone rule his own house, if he is single? The husband should rule his family home, well and that includes his wife and kids. A single man is automatically disqualified because he does not meet the qualifications for eldership.

Think of those qualifications as boxes that must be checked off (legalism, yeah I understand, but for this purpose it works). Let's look at those qualifications in Titus:

Titus 1:5-9
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--
If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.​

Now, before someone automatically shut there ears to everything I've said because you see the word "if" in there, let me say this: Read that verse again, that "if" is not a conditional if, it's not "if you find this type of man, than good but here are other exceptions" that "if" is more as "if you find this type of man than he need to be an elder, if they are not found with this qualities then keep looking."

read it again in the context:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination....​

And these qualities are to set the man apart from the others in verses 10-16




I disregarded your opinion of that grammar because it actually had no barring on the verse, because that phrase "husband of one wife" is not conditional. It is a qualification that he has be married.

The problem with your analysis is this:
While you say that I am "allowed to have "ONLY one car", whether it means I have a car or not, I am not getting a service out of it. If you say that I am "allowed" to have ONLY one car, it can mean that "If I have a car, I must only have one" or that "I don't have to have a car". But that "if" becomes conditional. But the bible does not say "a husband is "allowed" to only have one wife"...it says "he must be blameless, husband of one wife." There is no allowance in that clause. He must...so therefore if he does not, he is disqualified.

Now, if your whole entire argument was based on the idea that I said "it is not Paul that allows us to be married but God" I meant that when you posted that Paul allowed us to be married and I wanted to point out that it is not Paul who allows, it is God. Paul does not command us to do something or not do something, it is God. God allows us stay unmarried for those who can and He allow us to be married. But unmarried or married, there is no difference in Christ. But when men are to take on an eldership role, that role is reserved for a certain kind of man who meet the qualifications. It does not make them better or worse than anyone, it simply mean the role is eldership is reserved for those who meet the qualifications.

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.

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:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer,as God’s steward, must be above reproach.

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."

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.

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.

 

[drstevej]

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?

I know quite a few who hold that view. e.g. Dr. S. L. Johnson my Greek and Theology professor.


http://www.sljinstitute.net/index.asp

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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?

That is a really good point.

 

[ebia]

I know quite a few who hold that view. e.g. Dr. S. L. Johnson my Greek and Theology professor.

Wierd. So do they get the sack if their children drop out?

It would be easy, of course, to produce a large number of commentators who disagree.

So which commentary did he author? He appears to be a systematic theologian, not a biblical scholar as such.

 

[drstevej]

Wierd. So do they get the sack if their children drop out?

It would be easy, of course, to produce a large number of commentators who disagree.

So which commentary did he author? He appears to be a systematic theologian, not a biblical scholar as such.

The second link has his sermons in mss and audio. He was an awesome exegete and taught NT exegesis for decades.

Indeed, an elder's ability to manage his own house is a requirement to manage the household of God.

1 Timothy 3:4-5 (elder qualifications)
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

===

I know 1 Timothy is weird.

 

[drstevej]

That is a really good point.

See^^

 

[ebia]

That an elder should be able to manage his house is fair enough and what Paul is driving at. But the exegesis demanded above doesn't say that, but says that you can't be an elder without at least two faithful children. (In other words, it can't see the wood for the trees.)

 

[simonthezealot]

Well, you've misquoted what it actually says. Here's what's under item 1:

Papa tantae est dignitatis et celsitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus et Vicarius Dei; [quotes the "You are Peter" passage and its Gloss - the Gloss reads: Id, quod ipse erat, scilicet petra, voluit eam vocari Petrum]

Translation: The Pope is of so great dignity and height, to be not a simple man, but as though God and the Vicar of God.
Gloss: It, because he himself was certainly a rock, willed him to be called Peter

And you base the gloss on the parent language or your reading?
I didn't misquote, on the link you'll see page 41 and 42. You and i obviously looked at different pages.

 

[Yarddog]

Well i disagree. But God is control and I'm sorry about the garbage comment, it was out of line.

A great expression of Christian love.

God Bless

 

[drstevej]

That an elder should be able to manage his house is fair enough and what Paul is driving at. But the exegesis demanded above doesn't say that, but says that you can't be an elder without at least two faithful children. (In other words, it can't see the wood for the trees.)

Changing issues mid stream are we?

[1] you talk about children who drop out.
[2] I answer that
[3] you shift to plural children

BTW, Dr. S.L. Johnson wife died and several years later he remarried. When he remarried he resigned as an elder because he was no longer husband of but one wife.

Agree or not, he was willing to live out his convictions rather than bend the text to accommodate his circumstances.

May his tribe increase.

 

[Melethiel]

And you base the gloss on the parent language or your reading?
I didn't misquote, on the link you'll see page 41 and 42. You and i obviously looked at different pages.

That is my translation of the Gloss - I admit it was a difficult one. How would you translate it?

 

[ebia]

Changing issues mid stream are we?

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.

BTW, Dr. S.L. Johnson wife died and several years later he remarried. When he remarried he resigned as an elder because he was no longer husband of but one wife.

Agree or not, he was willing to live out his convictions rather than bend the text to accommodate his circumstances.

May his tribe increase.

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?