"Let Us Prey"-Hunter Lundy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You are inserting "one must be married to be a minister" where it is not found, or even implied. You might feel comfortable taking such liberties with the Bible. I, however, do not.

Brother, I'm sorry you feel that is what I'm doing.

Brother it is an outline on how the ministers are to conduct themselves. It is rules that the apostle laid down. 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul states that the man must be blameless the husband of one wife. His blamelessness is directly tied to the faithfulness to his wife. If it means plural wives, then Paul is saying that being blameless is not having plural wives? Pretty confusing if you hang on to the plurality of wives view of this verse. They had to be married because the ruling and overseeing of the home is what was used by Paul as an indicator on how they would oversee the congregation. Pretty simple.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother, I'm sorry you feel that is what I'm doing.

Brother it is an outline on how the ministers are to conduct themselves. It is rules that the apostle laid down. 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul states that the man must be blameless the husband of one wife. His blamelessness is directly tied to the faithfulness to his wife. If it means plural wives, then Paul is saying that being blameless is not having plural wives? Pretty confusing if you hang on to the plurality of wives view of this verse. They had to be married because the ruling and overseeing of the home is what was used by Paul as an indicator on how they would oversee the congregation. Pretty simple.

Why is "blameless" only tied to "husband of one wife"? Those are obviously two different qualifications being listed. How does never having been married make one not "blameless"?

Furthermore, "ruling well in his own household" is referring directly to children. So by your rule, one must have children to be a bishop?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Why is "blameless" only tied to "husband of one wife"? Those are obviously two different qualifications being listed. How does never having been married make one not "blameless"?

Furthermore, "ruling well in his own household" is referring directly to children. So by your rule, one must have children to be a bishop?

Bro, you are the one confusing this, so let me ask you since you are the one who knows how it should be.

Are these merely suggestions which can be modified by situations?

[Evang.Benincasa]

The blamelessness that the minister must hold is tied to the statement of one wife. Since he is to have one wife they believed he would have a household.
This household would be an indicator to how he would oversee the church. Now, the second indicator is that his children obey him. No children? Then the indicator that Paul set up is missing some ingredients. So, how much of this outline is to be kept and how much of it do we use. Religious liberties aren't be pushed by me. I'm just reading the epistle. So, are these suggestions or are the commands by the apostle on finding qualified ministers?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The blamelessness that the minister must hold is tied to the statement of one wife. Since he is to have one wife they believed he would have a household.
This household would be an indicator to how he would oversee the church. Now, the second indicator is that his children obey him. No children? Then the indicator that Paul set up is missing some ingredients. So, how much of this outline is to be kept and how much of it do we use. Religious liberties aren't be pushed by me. I'm just reading the epistle. So, are these suggestions or are the commands by the apostle on finding qualified ministers?

The problem as I see it is just where does Paul direct this to ministers. What is a minister in the first place?
Paul specifically uses the term "Overseer" not one of the gifts of ministry as given in Ephesians 4. What does a overseer over see? And while we are at it, who does a deacon serve. As the office means "waiter". How doe we jump to the conclusion that Paul is speaking of spiritual oversight, instead of administrative over sight of the church, such as a deacon board would serve in our day and time.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The problem as I see it is just where does Paul direct this to ministers. What is a minister in the first place?
Paul specifically uses the term "Overseer" not one of the gifts of ministry as given in Ephesians 4. What does a overseer over see? And while we are at it, who does a deacon serve. As the office means "waiter". How doe we jump to the conclusion that Paul is speaking of spiritual oversight, instead of administrative over sight of the church, such as a deacon board would serve in our day and time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The problem as I see it is just where does Paul direct this to ministers. What is a minister in the first place?
Paul specifically uses the term "Overseer" not one of the gifts of ministry as given in Ephesians 4. What does a overseer over see? And while we are at it, who does a deacon serve. As the office means "waiter". How doe we jump to the conclusion that Paul is speaking of spiritual oversight, instead of administrative over sight of the church, such as a deacon board would serve in our day and time.

Bro, they are ministers, you do have a church government in the New Testament. Overseer covers all from the pastor, to the evangelist. Peter was an apostle but called himself an elder. Ordination was instructed to Titus. He was to ordain ministers "elders" in every city. Diakonos means one who serves. In 1st Timothy we are shown that these individuals weren't just anyone, but those who filled a qualification outlined by Paul to serve in the church. The Apostle Peter instructed that Deacons would help in serving the church families while the office of apostle would dedicate themselves to prayer, and study Acts 6:1-15. This is where Philip the Evangelist comes from the 7 appointed deacons.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, they are ministers, you do have a church government in the New Testament. Overseer covers all from the pastor, to the evangelist. Peter was an apostle but called himself an elder. Ordination was instructed to Titus. He was to ordain ministers "elders" in every city. Diakonos means one who serves. In 1st Timothy we are shown that these individuals weren't just anyone, but those who filled a qualification outlined by Paul to serve in the church. The Apostle Peter instructed that Deacons would help in serving the church families while the office of apostle would dedicate themselves to prayer, and study Acts 6:1-15. This is where Philip the Evangelist comes from the 7 appointed deacons.

No, Sorry that is not what I believe scripture is teaching. There were not offices of ministry, there were offices of overseers. We are all given a gift or gifts of ministry. Ephesians 4. These gifts were not pulpit ministries, as we define them today. they worked among the saints for the purpose of equipping each other for the work of ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ.

While one ordained as an overseer, had a gift of ministry, as we all should have. That was not what they were ordained to or for. They were chosen for administrative duties of the fledgling church. And the very example of this is found in the very passage you directed me to, Acts 6. These men were not chosen for anything other than to direct and oversee the care of the widows in the church.

Which should make us understand the qualifications in Timothy, as a Bishop or deacon was not spiritual but administrative, hence the need to be an elder, in control of his home, he/they held the purse strings and controlled the finances of the local assembly. They held the same responsibility as those that were chosen in Acts 6.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, you are the one confusing this, so let me ask you since you are the one who knows how it should be.

Are these merely suggestions which can be modified by situations?

1. Blameless

2. One woman man ( No requirement to be married implied. If he is a husband, he can have only one wife.)

3. temperate

4. Self Controlled

5. respectable

6. Hospitable

7. able to teach

8. not a drunk

9. gentle, not violent.

10. not quarrelsome

11. not a lover of money

12. If he has children, he must manage them well. ( No requirement to have children implied)

13. Not a recent convert.

14. Good reputation with outsiders.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

1. Blameless

2. One woman man ( No requirement to be married implied. If he is a husband, he can have only one wife.)

3. temperate

4. Self Controlled

5. respectable

6. Hospitable

7. able to teach

8. not a drunk

9. gentle, not violent.

10. not quarrelsome

11. not a lover of money

12. If he has children, he must manage them well. ( No requirement to have children implied)

13. Not a recent convert.

14. Good reputation with outsiders.

IF?

If he has a wife?

Where are you finding the "if" in all of this?

The criteria is that if he rules his own house well then we give him the job.

Explain how the apostle has you to conclude the "if" he has a wife, and how did Paul in 1st Timothy give another indicator other than ruling over his own home. If he is single how was the church going to measure his qualifications?
Where did Paul give us the substitute?