"Let Us Prey"-Hunter Lundy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't think it should have to be said if you opt for a life of chastity then your disqualified from church offices. That makes no sense. I understand that a person could argue that there is experience gained from living the family life. I agree, but Paul himself said that marriage causes us to care for the things of the world. Would it make sense for him punish their sacrifices for the kingdom of God. It wouldn't make sense to me. IMO

This isn't about if a person can argue it. The Apostle Paul spells it out in 1st Timothy 3:4-5. He doesn't only speak about being an overseer of the home, but then in 1st Timothy 3:5 runs his point to the hilt. The Apostle states, if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church? These are the qualifications right? This is where the apostles set the rules correct? So, where are we given license to improve or modify what Paul outlined? This shows that a man needed to be married, or at least married during his life time which he proved himself to be a good bishop over his own household. One wife and one husband has to do with fidelity. In the ancient Roman world polygamy was frowned upon, therefore it isn't an option. The Apostle Paul wasn't trying to teach the Roman world how to be Judean, or speak Hebrew, or hold to Talmudic traditions. Christianity isn't Islam where one has to adopt some ancient Bedouin language, or traditions in order to practice the religion. In the ancient Roman world Romans were to have one wife, and Roman women were to have one husband. Fidelity was "supposed" to be practiced. Romans were to set themselves apart from other cultures were practiced sister brother marriages, or mother son marriages. Hence the reason why Paul states in 1 Corinthians 5:1 that incest was frowned upon in the Roman world. Disqualification of a minister would be the opposite of the qualifications which Paul outlines in 1st Timothy 3. If he was making suggestions then show that it was merely suggestions which the churches could modify if they pleased.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This isn't about if a person can argue it. The Apostle Paul spells it out in 1st Timothy 3:4-5. He doesn't only speak about being an overseer of the home, but then in 1st Timothy 3:5 runs his point to the hilt. The Apostle states, if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church? These are the qualifications right? This is where the apostles set the rules correct? So, where are we given license to improve or modify what Paul outlined? This shows that a man needed to be married, or at least married during his life time which he proved himself to be a good bishop over his own household. One wife and one husband has to do with fidelity. In the ancient Roman world polygamy was frowned upon, therefore it isn't an option. The Apostle Paul wasn't trying to teach the Roman world how to be Judean, or speak Hebrew, or hold to Talmudic traditions. Christianity isn't Islam where one has to adopt some ancient Bedouin language, or traditions in order to practice the religion. In the ancient Roman world Romans were to have one wife, and Roman women were to have one husband. Fidelity was "supposed" to be practiced. Romans were to set themselves apart from other cultures were practiced sister brother marriages, or mother son marriages. Hence the reason why Paul states in 1 Corinthians 5:1 that incest was frowned upon in the Roman world. Disqualification of a minister would be the opposite of the qualifications which Paul outlines in 1st Timothy 3. If he was making suggestions then show that it was merely suggestions which the churches could modify if they pleased.

Again, commanding married ministers to rule their house well is not the same as saying, "one must me married to be a minister". There is no hermeneutical model that could be used to come to such a conclusion.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I totally understand, but you still can't claim the phrase means multiple wives in one and not multiple wives in another. 1 Timothy 5:9 says individual husband as 1 Timothy 3:2, and 1 Timothy 3:12 say individual wife. It is speaking of fidelity. Again, to place a polygamous meaning to one is to place a polyandry meaning to the other. Whether you are talking about ministry or the widowed elder women.

Paul is not condemning polygamy in I Timothy 3. He is simply stating that a man with more than one wife could not be an effective 5 fold minister. Thus Paul would not need to deal with some far out thing like a woman having multiple husbands.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Again, commanding married ministers to rule their house well is not the same as saying, "one must me married to be a minister". There is no hermeneutical model that could be used to come to such a conclusion.

Hermeneutical model? Bro, you have a clear logical statement, which said if you can't rule your house you can't be an overseer in the church. It also says they must be the husband of one wife. This isn't Egyptian Hieroglyphs we are deciphering, this is plain statements interpreted into English.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

To say this verse is referring to polygamy is possible, but it is the most loose way to interpret it. I would rather take the high road. One means one and if you have been divorced and remarried that makes two. If I am a voting member I couldn't vote for a minister who has a 2nd living wife. I know there are many out there and that is between them, their congregation and the Lord. I have scripture to stand on in forming my belief, but if some interpret it as polygamy then that is them.

As far as Paul being married, I don't believe that. I have kicked the thought around, but to me it is to tarnish the image of Paul's rep. If he was separated from his wife, as EB says, "there is always two sides". He then wouldn't be blameless. No matter what scholars say about the Pharisees marital requirements. The Bible only says: I don't think that Paul was meaning I would that all men were divorced or separated. I think he was saying that I would that all men are single and continuing in chastity.

In Paul's letter to Timothy concerning the bishops, it would seem that he was not making marriage a requirement, but requirements of marriage. If he was speaking of the necessity of marriage he would have disqualified his self. Most men likely would have been married by the time they would be considered for the offices in the Church. That being the general rule. How many men are looking for a mate by the time they are reaching adulthood? Most of all of them.

I think Paul was being clear that if they desired the offices of deacon or bishop there marriage status should be blameless (only one wife for one life). Of course if you have committed yourself to God by abstinence then that would not disqualify you from Church offices. If anything it would be better for you. The thing is that Paul had very few partakers for such a commitment and that is true today. I honestly only know of one person in my life that has made such a commitment. He is not very popular on here, but it is Lee Stoneking. I know of single Christians, but all that I know of are still open to marriage. Some of them are very aged, but they say if the right one comes along, lol.

Paul was addressing the multitude of men. If you want to be a bishop or deacon only one wife fellows. I don't think it should have to be said if you opt for a life of chastity then your disqualified from church offices. That makes no sense. I understand that a person could argue that there is experience gained from living the family life. I agree, but Paul himself said that marriage causes us to care for the things of the world. Would it make sense for him punish their sacrifices for the kingdom of God. It wouldn't make sense to me. IMO

Here is the problem with your theory. Let's say you have two men. Both lived equally ungodly lives. Both got saved in the same moment in the same church. The only difference in these two repentant sinners is that one is divorced and remarried. You seem to imply that the one who is divorced and remarried is automatically disqualified from 5 fold ministry for a divorce and remarriage that happened in his unsaved past. Really? He is disqualified from 5 fold ministry because he didn't rule well in his own home before he was saved? He can be in 5 fold ministry if he was a murderer. drug dealer, and even an adulterer in his unsaved past. But if he was divorced and remarried in his unsaved past, he is disqualified from 5 fold ministry?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Paul is not condemning polygamy in I Timothy 3. He is simply stating that a man with more than one wife could not be an effective 5 fold minister. Thus Paul would not need to deal with some far out thing like a woman having multiple husbands.

Far out thing like a woman having multiple husbands? I'm not the one who believes that Paul is trying to stop ministers from polygamy. Also you now introduce that Paul was OK with polygamy but just didn't think it was OK for ministers? That my dear brother opens up a Can O Worms. Please explain how you found that Paul was OK with plural marriages and how did you come to the conclusion that this list in 1st Timothy 3 are only suggestions? 1st Timothy 5:9 still uses the term ONE HUSBAND, and if we are going to be consistent we would have to apply the same meaning to that verse and you have with the two other verses 1st Timothy 3:2, and 1st Timothy 3:12.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Far out thing like a woman having multiple husbands? I'm not the one who believes that Paul is trying to stop ministers from polygamy. Also you now introduce that Paul was OK with polygamy but just didn't think it was OK for ministers? That my dear brother opens up a Can O Worms. Please explain how you found that Paul was OK with plural marriages and how did you come to the conclusion that this list in 1st Timothy 3 are only suggestions? 1st Timothy 5:9 still uses the term ONE HUSBAND, and if we are going to be consistent we would have to apply the same meaning to that verse and you have with the two other verses 1st Timothy 3:2, and 1st Timothy 3:12.

I never said Paul was "OK" with it. I simply said he did not condemn it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hermeneutical model? Bro, you have a clear logical statement, which said if you can't rule your house you can't be an overseer in the church. It also says they must be the husband of one wife. This isn't Egyptian Hieroglyphs we are deciphering, this is plain statements interpreted into English.

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Here is the problem with your theory. Let's say you have two men. Both lived equally ungodly lives. Both got saved in the same moment in the same church. The only difference in these two repentant sinners is that one is divorced and remarried. You seem to imply that the one who is divorced and remarried is automatically disqualified from 5 fold ministry for a divorce and remarriage that happened in his unsaved past. Really? He is disqualified from 5 fold ministry because he didn't rule well in his own home before he was saved? He can be in 5 fold ministry if he was a murderer. drug dealer, and even an adulterer in his unsaved past. But if he was divorced and remarried in his unsaved past, he is disqualified from 5 fold ministry?

Another hypothetical, which still is missing important puzzle parts. I'm sorry but life just isn't that cut and dry. These men were supposed to be overseers in their own home. They were to be elders in the church, they were not to be new converts, bro, this is a simple outline. The pulpit isn't salvation for a man, Jesus is the saviour. If a brother has to stand down he can still repent and be saved. His salvation isn't connected to a platform, a pulpit, or even a calling. Wasn't Saul anointed? But it was totally up to King Saul with how he treated that calling. Same with those who hold a bishopric, they must honor and respect the job they are given. James warns, be ye not many teachers, because you will be held to the strictest standards.

[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.