"Let Us Prey"-Hunter Lundy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

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

Not condemning it means what?

Paul said that these ministers were to be blameless then follows his statement with the term "one wife" so please explain.

[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?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Good Samaritan was adamant that someone who is divorced and remarried cannot be a bishop. I simply want to know if he feels that applies to divorce and remarriage in one's unsaved past. You don't seem to want to answer the question. I hope Good Samaritan will.

[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?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Good Samaritan was adamant that someone who is divorced and remarried cannot be a bishop. I simply want to know if he feels that applies to divorce and remarriage in one's unsaved past. You don't seem to want to answer the question. I hope Good Samaritan will.

I highly doubt that an unsaved past divorce can be brought into the discussion because then all the qualifications are moot.

[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.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I highly doubt that an unsaved past divorce can be brought into the discussion because then all the qualifications are moot.

I agree. The Assemblies of God, however, will not license a divorced person, period.

[Godsdrummer]

Wow
Eight pages of discussion on a subject from the wrong point of view, in the first place.
How do we jump from the "Gifts" God in Ephesians 4, to offices in the church in Timothy? They are two differing subjects. The very definitions of a Bishop and Deacon should let us know that one is not the same as another. The whole mind set is based on traditions passed down from the Roman Catholic church, that have been accepted and never properly studied out, just as Sunday church as apposed to Sabbath keeping, and a barrage of other traditions that were passed down from the RCC that are not bible but rather traditions.

As for an example of a minister that fell into sin and was restored, what about David. The man scripture says was a man after God's heart. Who not only committed adultery but murder. Yet God did not remove him as king.

When one removes the mindset propagated by tradition, scripture does not teach the authoritive hierarchy of ministerial offices as propagated within most churches.

Just my two cents, carry on.

[good samaritan]

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.

One wife for one life was not a suggestion. None of what Paul said in Timothy was a suggestion, but the qualifications of a Bishop. My point is that Paul was making the rules based upon typical adult males. Paul in several places encourages not to marry, but be like himself. He was not encouraging people to live in a manner that would disqualify them from the church offices. We can go around and around on this, but for me Paul was saying that a man must have a proven marriage (that being the case of 99%), not that he must be proven by marriage. It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but if it disqualify him from the good work of the office of a bishop how would it be good?