Man Can Live With Out A Woman...

[HappyChristian]

Thanks for your explanation.  However, I don't see what you see in the Scriptures.  Maybe something I missed or has not sunk in...

What's not to see?  A bishop is to be the husband of one wife, and rule his children well.  So, too, is a deacon.  If one teaches that a pastor HAS to be married in order to pastor, then all of the rest of it follows.  Pastors must have children (Plural - an only child would disqualify the pastor....so my hubby would be disqualified. Hint: he's not) if they must be married.  Deacons must have children (again, plural) as well as be married.  So all of those men who God, for His own reasons, gave no children, or only one, are disqualified from being pastors or deacons (we HAVE to include deacons in this, or we are inconsistent)?  Yes, if that is the meaning of those passages (again, we cannot just use one verse...).

 

If one wants to teach that a man MUST be married to pastor, that one MUST teach that all pastors MUST have more than one child, and all deacons MUST be married and MUST have more than one child.  If someone wants to believe that AND practices ALL four aspects, that's fine.  Otherwise there is inconsistency.

 

(sorry, I think I repeated myself...)

 

After studying, my hubby (and I) believe that scripture is teaching that a pastor is to be a one-woman man if he is married.  AND if he has children, must have them under his authority (not perfect...there is a difference).  And the same goes for a deacon.

[swathdiver]

Timothy and Titus don't say what you're saying.  What other verses are you using?

[JerryNumbers]

My position is simply what I've been saying all along (and it encompasses more scripture than just 1 Tim. 3:2):

 

The man-made doctrine that a man HAS to be married in order to pastor is erroneous.  If a person holds to that belief, then, in order to not be inconsistent, that person HAS to teach that a man must also have children in order to pastor.  And even further, that person HAS to teach that a man who is or would be a deacon MUST be married and MUST have children.

 

So, yes, if a single man is pastoring, he can marry later.  Just as a couple (where the man is a pastor) can have children later.  And so too with deacons.

 

See, the problem is that we so often pull out one or two phrases and create a doctrine that simply isn't consistent with the rest of scripture.  And that is what the teaching that a pastor MUST be married is.  

The only reason i keep coming back is because of your use of man made doctrine.

 

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

 

Its a fact, you cannot know how a man will rule his own home, how his children will do, until he is married & has children, so until the man is married with children you cannot know if he meets these qualifications are not. The single man does not rule a home.

 

Now we will turn it around being as the accusation you make against me, your making up woman made doctrine.

[JerryNumbers]

Notice the verses about a pastors qualifications, it does not say, IF he has a wife, IFhe has children. the IF is being read into the Holy Scriptures.

 

There is an IF in there, but its here, If a man desire the office of a bishop, & that is the only IF I see in those verses.

 

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

 

One thing for sure the unmarried man, the single man, cannot show that he knows how to rule his own house, family, if he does not have a family.

[Miss Daisy]

This is all news to me! I never gave it much thought either. I just assumed it meant IF he was married and IF he had kids. What if he's married and wife is unable to conceive?

I'm gonna ask my pastor tomorrow night about this if I remember.

[John81]

If a pastor must be married, how long must he be married before we can determine if his marriage is sound enough for him to pastor? If a pastor must have children, how old must the children be before we can determine if he has them under his authority? Also, since the term is plural (children, not child) then that would mean a man couldn't be a pastor until he had at least two children. At what point do a pastor's children's lives no longer impact his ability to be a pastor? Who is to examine the pastors marriage, relationship with his children and his overall family to determine if he meets all the biblical qualifications?

 

Then it would seem we have to apply much of this to the deacons as well.

[HappyChristian]

Timothy and Titus don't say what you're saying.  What other verses are you using?

Hmmm - please elucidate on what you say they aren't saying that I am saying (and please point out where I said they said something they didn't) - whew, is that confusing?  

[HappyChristian]

 

The only reason i keep coming back is because of your use of man made doctrine.

 

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

 

Its a fact, you cannot know how a man will rule his own home, how his children will do, until he is married & has children, so until the man is married with children you cannot know if he meets these qualifications are not. The single man does not rule a home.

 

Now we will turn it around being as the accusation you make against me, your making up woman made doctrine.

 

Well, in fact, I never said anyone could know how a man will rule his own home, how his children will do, etc., etc...But, yeah, you can kinda get a sense of how a man will lead his family by his character...

 

And, pardon me, but a single man does too rule a home.  His home.  A single man has character or lack thereof as well as a married man.  And a single man must rule himself (kinda like a married man must rule his children). He must pay his bills on time. And so forth.  Every home has a head, a ruler.  Even if there is only one person living in that home.  

 

Jerry, sometimes I wonder about your reading...I never pointed a finger at anyone.  If you want to take this personally, go right ahead and do so.  It doesn't matter to me.  And if you think I'm offended because of your bogus charge of a woman-made doctrine, think again.  It doesn't bother me - because I know it isn't true.  You apparently missed my references to my hubby, but that's okay. 

 

And apparently you missed where I said this:  

 

If one wants to teach that a man MUST be married to pastor, that one MUST teach that all pastors MUST have more than one child, and all deacons MUST be married and MUST have more than one child.  If someone wants to believe that AND practices ALL four aspects, that's fine.  Otherwise there is inconsistency.

 

 

Jerry, if you want to teach that a man MUST be married in order to pastor a church, then you have to teach that he MUST have children.  More than one, because children is plural.  And by that teaching, any pastor who has only one child is disqualified.  And then you must teach that deacons also MUST be married and MUST have more than one child.  

 

So....anyone on this forum who is a pastor but has only one or no children (even if they are grown) must step down - because the Bible says "children."  Anyone who is a deacon, likewise.  

 

And then let's forget all about where Paul said it's better to remain unmarried like he was so that one could better serve the Lord...

[swathdiver]

Hmmm - please elucidate on what you say they aren't saying that I am saying (and please point out where I said they said something they didn't) - whew, is that confusing?  

 

Why are you laughing at me?

 

Would you please type out for us 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:4 from YOUR bible please?  Mine doesn't even remotely say what yours does and I'd like to make sure mine and therefore me, is not in error.

 

Mine says:  

1 Timothy 3:2 - "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

1 Timothy 3:4 - "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;"

 

I also asked the other day if you were using other verses besides those applying to deacons and the verses from Titus but missed the response if there was one.

[Salyan]

So, Swath, to clarify, you believe that each pastor and deacon must be married, and have at least two living children in order to qualify. True or false?

[HappyChristian]

Why are you laughing at me?

 

Would you please type out for us 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:4 from YOUR bible please?  Mine doesn't even remotely say what yours does and I'd like to make sure mine and therefore me, is not in error.

 

Mine says:  

1 Timothy 3:2 - "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

1 Timothy 3:4 - "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;"

 

I also asked the other day if you were using other verses besides those applying to deacons and the verses from Titus but missed the response if there was one.

Number one, I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing at my wording...notice the question about being confusing?

 

My Bible is King James, swath - same as yours.  What I wrote is not unclear.  Read further in 1 Timothy 3 and you'll see that it says the same thing about deacons.  Check 1 Cor. 7 as well for Paul's statements that it's better to remain single in order to serve the Lord better...

 

And I'll go further.  The Greek behind "husband of one wife" gives the idea of a "one-woman man."  NOT an order that a pastor MUST marry, but that if he does, he must marry ONE woman.

 

Again, if you proclaim that these passages state an order, then only men who have more than one child can pastor.  And deacons as well. 

 

Oh, and again - could you specify what it is I've said that isn't remotely in there?  

[swathdiver]

So, Swath, to clarify, you believe that each pastor and deacon must be married, and have at least two living children in order to qualify. True or false?

 

My beliefs don't matter.  My reading of the bible does in fact say that a pastor and deacon must be married (maybe a widower?) and have had at least two children (not sure if one dying disqualifies him).  I don't see any "ifs" or "maybes" or "shoulds" in those verses.

 

Number one, I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing at my wording...notice the question about being confusing?

 

My Bible is King James, swath - same as yours.  What I wrote is not unclear.  Read further in 1 Timothy 3 and you'll see that it says the same thing about deacons.  Check 1 Cor. 7 as well for Paul's statements that it's better to remain single in order to serve the Lord better...

 

And I'll go further.  The Greek behind "husband of one wife" gives the idea of a "one-woman man."  NOT an order that a pastor MUST marry, but that if he does, he must marry ONE woman.

 

Again, if you proclaim that these passages state an order, then only men who have more than one child can pastor.  And deacons as well. 

 

Oh, and again - could you specify what it is I've said that isn't remotely in there?  

 

Confused laughter, I took it wrong, sorry.

 

1 Corinthians 7 doesn't refer to pastoring or the office of deacon, just service to the Lord.

 

God preserved his Word for the English speaking people in the King James Bible, I don't need the Greek to to know what God says about something.  That being said, A Pastor and Deacon MUST be the husband of one wife and MUST be the father of at least two children as "children" is plural, more than one, in those verses.  It doesn't say, if, should or maybe.

 

Any claim that a single man can pastor a church or a married man with one child can pastor a church is heresy according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  Are there other verses that speak of pastoral qualifications that I'm missing?  

[JerryNumbers]

If a pastor must be married, how long must he be married before we can determine if his marriage is sound enough for him to pastor? If a pastor must have children, how old must the children be before we can determine if he has them under his authority? Also, since the term is plural (children, not child) then that would mean a man couldn't be a pastor until he had at least two children. At what point do a pastor's children's lives no longer impact his ability to be a pastor? Who is to examine the pastors marriage, relationship with his children and his overall family to determine if he meets all the biblical qualifications?

 

Then it would seem we have to apply much of this to the deacons as well.

 

Who is to examine that person, the church who is looking for a pastor, & or the church, presbytery that's ordaining a pastor. I did not say he could not be a preacher, an evangelist.

 

There would be many that would qualify to be a preacher that would not qualify to be a pastor of  New Testament Church. 

[JerryNumbers]

I agree a novice shouldn't be in the pulpit.  Anyone who's had any experience with life knows that novice's are often high-minded and full of themselves, just as the Bible says.

 

>To create a doctrine, though, that a pastor HAS to be married (rather than just accepting what scripture says that he have only one wife...but not as an order to marry, just as a warning that they aren't to pastor if they have more than one wife) is man-made.  Just as stating that a man must have children to be a pastor (because that's in the reading, too).  As well as deacons...because the Bible says deacons are to be the husbands of one wife.  If we create a doctrine, we gotta accept it all, not just what we want to, else it breaks down in the long run. Of course, false doctrine has a tendency to do that, anyway.

 

So - no unmarried man can pastor.  No childless man can pastor.  No unmarried man can be a deacon. No childless man can be a deacon.  No widower can pastor.  No widower can be a deacon.  Sigh.  SMH at the silliness of mankind sometimes.  

 

See your accusing me of creating a doctrine.

 

And in this post, click on the link, your accusing me of tradition of men.

 

And in this post your accusations is I'm using, ">man-made doctrine." 

 

And because of these accusations is the reason I said this, 'woman made doctrine' i>n this post, to hopefully show you how it feels.

 

I feel sure you did not like those words any more than I like those you threw at me. And I will quickly as possible happily apologize to you for accusing you of 'woman made doctrine' as soon as you apologize to me for these accusation you made towards me. Why not just simply state why you disagree & leave off the accusations? Is that to much to ask for?

[HappyChristian]

See your accusing me of creating a doctrine.

 

And in this post, click on the link, your accusing me of tradition of men.

 

And in this post your accusations is I'm using, ">man-made doctrine." 

 

And because of these accusations is the reason I said this, 'woman made doctrine' i>n this post, to hopefully show you how it feels.

 

I feel sure you did not like those words any more than I like those you threw at me. And I will quickly as possible happily apologize to you for accusing you of 'woman made doctrine' as soon as you apologize to me for these accusation you made towards me. Why not just simply state why you disagree & leave off the accusations? Is that to much to ask for?

I'm apologizing for nothing, Jerry, because I did nothing wrong. You are yet again personalizing a discussion that was in no way aimed at anyone in particular.  You might "feel sure" I didn't like those words, but rest assured they made no impact on me.  I did simply state why I disagree: because it's man-made doctrine, IMO.  Is it too much to ask that I be allowed my opinion the same as you are allowed yours?  Of course it is, if you insist on taking every conversation personally.  Again: I made no accusations against YOU. If you took it that way, that is not my doing.  "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."