tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4317047554758950969..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: His Children [1]Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60869702952987885802009-05-24T11:05:21.868-07:002009-05-24T11:05:21.868-07:00well...you may still be crazy Mark...well...you may still be crazy Mark...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77380113096766567952009-05-23T10:24:13.472-07:002009-05-23T10:24:13.472-07:00I simply can't believe it!!!
I have NEVER heard A...I simply can't believe it!!! <br />I have NEVER heard ANYONE hold to that understanding and interpretation of this passage before, ever......other than myself :p<br />I have questioned myself many times over the years for holding to such a rigid interpretation of this, and other passages that lay out "qualifications" of an elder. Thank you for commenting on this, it makes me feel a little less crazy...lol.<br /><br />Keep the fire burning!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56705744602350777642009-05-23T08:05:51.159-07:002009-05-23T08:05:51.159-07:00It's dingenuous because you are, in effect, saying...It's dingenuous because you are, in effect, saying the same thing. The guy's point was that if you don't have kids, you can't be an elder. You were quibbling over whether that meant you were disqualified or just ineligible.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40240257925545527662009-05-22T21:41:32.421-07:002009-05-22T21:41:32.421-07:00I'm not sure how I was being disingenuous by tryin...I'm not sure how I was being disingenuous by trying to differentiate between terms. But I see your point.<br /><br />I do agree, if you hold to it, you hold to all of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-408074771745105842009-05-22T20:52:19.735-07:002009-05-22T20:52:19.735-07:00DAryl:
Frank did say he'd address the issue next ...DAryl:<br /><br />Frank did say he'd address the issue next week, but your responses are a little disingenuous. There isn't much difference between not yet qualified and disqualified. The bottom line is that the person is disqualified from holding the position until he has children and they show some evidence of belief. If you want to hold to that interpretation of Scripture, you have to hold to the entirety of it.<br /><br />And not everybody can adopt especially since it is prohibitively expensive for many couples.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58806496541730373002009-05-22T20:33:46.546-07:002009-05-22T20:33:46.546-07:00timeintheword,
I think Framk is planning on addre...timeintheword,<br /><br />I think Framk is planning on addressing questions like these next week.<br /><br />In the meantime, I'll give it a shot. The way I read it, I think the issue Frank is presenting is that the home is the place for an elder to learn how to shepherd.<br />Given that, it seems to me to be self-evident that a childless man, for any reason, becomes not disqualified, but untrained and thereby not ready.<br /><br />If he's reading Titus right. I'm not sure, but I'm willing to believe that that's how Paul meant it.<br /><br />Adoption seems to rule out the possiblity of anyone really being unable to have children to raise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45492580355027742662009-05-22T17:38:46.883-07:002009-05-22T17:38:46.883-07:00I'll ask again...
...is a man who meets every qua...I'll ask again...<br /><br />...is a man who meets every qualification given with the exception that he and his wife cannot have children disqualified?<br /><br />Does an elder have to have children?<br /><br />~pastorwayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84107888209151862792009-05-21T20:01:23.698-07:002009-05-21T20:01:23.698-07:00Tim:
My research led me to similar conclusions. ...Tim:<br /><br />My research led me to similar conclusions. I was hesistant to post my response because Frank's responses seemed a little terse even for him. I didn't want to get lumped in with the trolls, since I actually desire to learn. I'm struggling here because Frank's position is not aligned with the classical interpretation of this passage.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17821376064247971642009-05-21T18:51:28.666-07:002009-05-21T18:51:28.666-07:00I'll admit that comment was a drive by.
I'm just...I'll admit that comment was a drive by. <br /><br />I'm just point out that a number of serious commentators do spell things out. Admittedly, 1 Cor 7 doesn't mention elders. But the point is that it does hold singleness for the sake of ministry in higher regard. For example, how can Paul wish that all be like him, if he knows this would eliminate elders in the church (7:7). <br /><br />Obviously for Paul if one is unmarried one shouldn't seek marriage but remain where God has called him (7:17), but then how can one desire to be a teacher (cf. James). It is an issue of reconciling the two passages even though admittedly 1 Cor 7 doesn't mention elder in the same way Titus and Timothy don't mention the gift of singleness.<br /><br />You also have 7:32-34, that a married person has divided interests that the unmarried doesn't. So how do you reconcile this with your interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7. <br /><br />The commentators I checked bring this to bear and note that the focus is on the 'one' of 'one woman man' not necessarily that one must be married. The focus is not marital status but moral quality of fidelity. It goes to faithfulness, similar to the prescription about widows who are 'one-man-woman' (the English has to supply the 'has been') does rule out the widow to a second marriage. <br /><br />Some of the commentators point out that Paul's focus may be in light of 1 Tim. 4:3 and false teachers forbidding marriage. <br /><br />A couple things to consider is: is an elder disqualified if his wife dies? Does an elder have to have more than one child? (Paul's statements are plural). If it is status, than you have to say yes!<br /><br />I know we don't exegete by what others say, but those that I checked out, don't hold that the prescriptions on family are absolute but only relative to whether or not one is married because the issue is character not status. Along with the previous mentions, MacArthur has a really thorough interaction <A HREF="http://www.gty.org/Resources/transcripts/54-20" REL="nofollow">here</A>. His exegesis spells out what is meant my 'a one woman-man' (especially without the definite article). It also let's Scripture interpret Scripture. It spells out a line of argument with more detail than I would here on a blog meta. <br /><br />You might not agree, but I'm just saying a thorough argument can be made. Blog trolls aside, I think your sarcasm got the better of you. Just my opinion.<br /><br />-Timtimbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13059862238106919852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50813871928363403232009-05-21T18:49:13.532-07:002009-05-21T18:49:13.532-07:00"it seems a little whacky that only lustful men, w...<I>"it seems a little whacky that only lustful men, where lust is the root cause of marriage in those cases, can become elders </I>.<br /><br />I'm not quite sure what he means, but Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that if you cannot control yourself, you should get married and otherwise, should try to remain single. <br /><br />Frank:<br /><br /><I>Aaron: that's just grand-standing.</I> Perhaps. But it's exactly this point that many commentators make when expositing on Titus. I actually got the idea from reading Matthew Henry's commentary on Titus. (Wesley too). So its not like I just came out of left field.<br /><br />I have been reading and researching to follow along with your series here. With regards to this particlar post, I can't find any commentator, including MacArthur, that believes this passage in Tutus indicates that a man <I>must</I> be married (as opposed to dedicating himself as a single man to God) in order to be qualified to be an elder. That's not to say you're wrong, but it is something that impressed upon me as I was studying what you had to say. I'm also looking forward to your exposition on the portion regarding children since a plain reading of that text indicates that a man <I>must</I> have children and they <I>must</I> believe. I'll wait patiently for that post and study what you say carefully. But this is the first time in this series that I've had to struggle with your point.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44989644410226377272009-05-21T17:30:21.693-07:002009-05-21T17:30:21.693-07:00Tim --
So you're saying that anony commentors get...Tim --<br /><br />So you're saying that anony commentors get a pass for being strident and glib, but someone like me doesn't?<br /><br />That's an interesting paradigm. I'll ponder it. As to 1 Cor 7, I'm interested where it says that the unmarried are qualified to be elders. You could spell that out for me before you call my comment "unwarranted".FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74145233829510505942009-05-21T15:54:15.567-07:002009-05-21T15:54:15.567-07:00Frank,
Re: 1 Corinthians.
Several commentators ...Frank, <br /><br />Re: 1 Corinthians.<br /><br />Several commentators I was looking at today (Mounce, Towner and Knight) all mention in discussion of 1 Tim 3:2 and/or Titus 1:7 that Paul's discussion does not mean one is disqualified from being an elder if one is unmarried. I believe all three commentators mention specific references from 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul commends the non-married as being able to be more fully devoted to the Lord. I believe Andrew Strauch's book on eldership also mentions 1 Cor. 7 on the this issue.<br /><br />The question is why would Paul hold singleness so highly if at the same time he held that one must be married to be an elder?<br /><br />While Admin2 didn't mention what passage he was referring to (perhaps he meant some other passage that truly is irrelevant), I think your "abject ignorance" remark was uncalled for, unless of course you are going to throw Mounce, Towner, Knight, and Strauch into that category as well.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Timtimbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13059862238106919852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35403599954859762162009-05-21T13:58:18.504-07:002009-05-21T13:58:18.504-07:00Admin2:
Your questions demonstrate and abject ign...Admin2:<br /><br />Your questions demonstrate and abject ignornace of the Bible, and specifically of 1 Corinthians.<br /><br />I think that before you start giving us suggestions about what Saint Paul Really Said, you have better read it more closely.<br /><br />For those who think I have treated Admin2 unkindly here, I want you to consider this: my answer isn't any more terse or less graceful than his question. If his method of asking is valid, my method of answer is wholly valid.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37884538349351971752009-05-21T13:54:54.551-07:002009-05-21T13:54:54.551-07:00PR --
If you want a one-word answer, I'd say, "ye...PR --<br /><br />If you want a one-word answer, I'd say, "yes".<br /><br />If you want a paraphrase of MD's answer, I'd say, "Since you aren't an infant, and don't have an infant, I think you probably ought to think about things which concern you rather than looking for a fight where, in our credobaptistic church, we don't even have a boxing ring."<br /><br />And if you want more than that, you're going to have to come across as somewhat more serious about the question rather than trying to paint it in gossimer white and abysmal black.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8453441517201540892009-05-21T13:51:02.456-07:002009-05-21T13:51:02.456-07:00..FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90299830224823849892009-05-21T12:40:50.275-07:002009-05-21T12:40:50.275-07:00Admin2
Nowhere does Paul say that being married i...Admin2<br /><br />Nowhere does Paul say that being married is wrong. He observes rightly that if a man is married, he will have distractions in his life coming from his married responsibilities. <br /><br />In the passage we have been talking about, he says that an Elder must be the husband of one wife.<br /><br />I don't see any conflict there. Therefore what you are objecting to is a false dichotomy. <br /><br />Perhaps the real issue is that in order to ordain women, one must find some way to de-authorize Paul? And you are trying to find some way of doing that, because you can't tolerate what he wrote here and elsewhere, under direction of the Lord.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19837149802162805222009-05-21T11:03:04.573-07:002009-05-21T11:03:04.573-07:00Perhaps I'm trolling, and I'll go away now.
The a...Perhaps I'm trolling, and I'll go away now.<br /><br />The answer is easy for me. I'm a Methodist and we use our reason, tradition and experience to interpret scripture. We even ordain women! <br /><br />If someone is called to be an elder and cannot shed that calling (and when God calls, it is not good to ignore Him, as we all know), and the church prayerfully comes to the same conclusion, then he (or she) becomes an elder. <br /><br />You cannot ignore inconsistencies by defining them as hypotheticals or turning logic on its head to resolve them. <br /><br />Jesus is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit still works in our lives daily. God is the highest authority and will not fit into a book. <br /><br />But in all practicality I'm not nor will I ever be a scholar on par with anyone here. <br /><br />I'm simply not convinced by any of the 100+ comments that you have addressed the entirety of scripture.Admin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/18002707325024160294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39887629604899330692009-05-21T10:48:22.042-07:002009-05-21T10:48:22.042-07:00What??? 1 Corinthians is pretty clear at least to...What??? 1 Corinthians is pretty clear at least to me. <br /><br />You guys are all married, I suppose :)<br /><br />Can you clue me in on how to discern what Paul is scripture and what is hypothetical and dancing on a pin? <br /><br />That seems like an easy way to explain away difficult scriptural "inconsistencies." <br /><br />I still am wondering how if it is better to be single why only married men can be elders. <br /><br />The answer that 100% of men suffer from lust doesn't get it for me.Admin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/18002707325024160294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35864811319434199482009-05-21T10:01:03.041-07:002009-05-21T10:01:03.041-07:00Frank - so well put, that last comment of yours. I...Frank - so well put, that last comment of yours. I know a man who went to seminary in his late 40s and became a pastor for the first time in his early 50s. Seminary didn't hurt him, because he had judgement, something that is often lacking in a 20 year old.<br /><br />Admin2 - that's quite a list of hypothetical conundrums you've dreamed up there. I could only add "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? to that.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47108611705073007922009-05-21T09:46:54.023-07:002009-05-21T09:46:54.023-07:00And, BTW, how on earth does living a celibate life...And, BTW, how on earth does living a celibate life equate to trying to live a holy life?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13032318535539360252009-05-21T09:46:08.080-07:002009-05-21T09:46:08.080-07:00Admin2,
You find me a man, less than 80, who has ...Admin2,<br /><br />You find me a man, less than 80, who has no issue with lust and I'll show you a man who either has a medical problem or is dead.<br /><br />The leap to saying that only men who struggle with lust can be elders is just nuts.<br />And it's not as if Scripture mandates marriage to prevent lust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6020001343142734632009-05-21T09:15:18.907-07:002009-05-21T09:15:18.907-07:001 Corinthians 7:1-9 seems to say that it's better ...1 Corinthians 7:1-9 seems to say that it's better to be single than married, marriage being a antidote, so to speak, for the sin of lust. <br /><br />One might argue that we're all guilty of the sin of lust, and thus marriage is the response required before becoming an elder. <br /><br />But if that were universally true across the board for all mankind, why would Paul say twice that it's good to not be married? <br /><br />While it's logical that someone who cannot lead a family cannot lead a church, it seems a little whacky that only lustful men, where lust is the root cause of marriage in those cases, can become elders. <br /><br />It's disheartening to turn on the news and find yet another church leader exposed for lust of one kind or another. Perhaps we could use a little less lust and a little more celibacy in church leadership. <br /><br />Or contrast a 30 year old man who had to get married at 17 because he got his girlfriend pregnant vs. a man who is still celibate at age 30 because he worked hard at a holy scriptural life.<br /><br />Is the first man an automatically, scripturally commanded, better elder?Admin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/18002707325024160294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91591226802244785872009-05-21T07:54:10.705-07:002009-05-21T07:54:10.705-07:00Frank:
I agree that elders have to have such qual...Frank:<br /><br />I agree that elders have to have such qualifications. However, Driscoll in his <I>Confessions</I> was rudely dismissing a member of his congregation who asked him the question of pedocommunion. Is this how pastors/elders are to dismiss the doctrinal questions of others? Along a parallel line, would you recommend an elder do the same if the question was on pedobaptism - the enquirer should get married first and have his first child before even considering the topic?Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79000900735336502852009-05-21T07:09:37.821-07:002009-05-21T07:09:37.821-07:00Hayden:
Since you ask, seminary is a blessing -- ...Hayden:<br /><br />Since you ask, seminary is a blessing -- for a man qualified to be an elder. Seminary does not qualify anyone to be an elder -- TMS, TEDS, Southern, WTS or whatever. It is conspicuously absent from the criteria for being an elder, in fact.<br /><br />The other true fact is that many men who are otherwise qualified to be an elder could use seminary to round out their ability to rightly handle the word, therefore helping to qualify them.<br /><br />So seminary is not the problem, per se. How we use what is available at seminary, and how we see that resource, is the problem.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50773023020337215222009-05-21T06:22:26.292-07:002009-05-21T06:22:26.292-07:00Frank,
At TMS the qualifications of being a pasto...Frank,<br /><br />At TMS the qualifications of being a pastor were emphasized and examined for each graduate. Is TMS an exception or part of the problem?<br /><br />PS I did pray that some guys would not go to local churches not because of their character but because of their lack of preaching ability, but that is a different story.<br />;--)Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01256518337951573331noreply@blogger.com