Titus

[Alan]

Unfortunately most "conservative Christians" seem to disagree with much of this and promote various forms of rebellion just as do "liberal Christians" (and the lost). I can't even count the number or variety of wild arguments I've heard from Christians as to why they can flaunt speed limits or why it's okay for them to dodge taxes or why taking up arms is the solution to just about anything they have a problem with.

Too many Christians are caught up and entangled in politics, political action and assorted "rights" movements to the neglect of Christian growth and living. To them, doing things God's way is equal to doing nothing. In effect they find themselves trying to help God set things right (as they see it in their own eyes) by going against God's commands.

John81,

I could not have said it better. Thank you.

Eswarden,

I am glad to know that the brief side-study on Luke 20:21-23 coupled with Daniel 9:24-27 was a blessing to you. 

Brethren,

Does anybody else have any thoughts, comments, or areas of discussion that you would like to see discussed?

Alan

[Christian Markle]

I am new to this forum and this is my first post.  I am not sure how this Bible Study format works. Are we on Chapter 3:1? If so, I would ask what everyone sees as the flow of thought from vs 1-8?

For His glory

Christian Markle

Edited September 22, 2015 by Christian Markle

[Alan]

Christian Markle,

Welcome! We are very happy to have you on OnLine Baptist and part of this discussion on the book of Titus.

I am new to this forum and this is my first post.  I am not sure how this Bible Study format works. Are we on Chapter 3:1? If so, I would ask what everyone sees as the flow of thought from vs 1-8?

For His glory

Christian Markle

I will briefly answer your questions.

1. The way this bible study format works is that someone (for this study that someone is me) starts a subject and sort of keeps the thread on the subject matter and, in this case, as I load lessons up anyone who wants to comment, discuss, agree or disagree may do so (hopefully in a friendly manner). If I need to clarify anything that I said please let me know.

2. Yes we are one Chapter 3:1. When people comment I try and respond in an appropriate manner. 

3. The flow of thought of verses 1-8. Good Question! Does anybody have any response to what you think is the flow of thoughts of Titus 3:1-8?

One last thought, since you are just coming to this thread, if you have any comments on any of the earlier lessons in Titus, or lessons that were a blessing to you, please let us know.

Glad to have  you in this discussion of Titus.

Alan

Edited September 22, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[trapperhoney]

I am new to this forum and this is my first post.  I am not sure how this Bible Study format works. Are we on Chapter 3:1? If so, I would ask what everyone sees as the flow of thought from vs 1-8?

For His glory

Christian Markle

what I see as the flow of thought is, Paul is admonishing not to speak ill of any man (this would include those in authority over us, whether it be church leadership or secular) and he "justifies" it by reminding that before we were saved we had a lot of sinful, contentious behaviors.  Basically -- except for the grace of God that brought you salvation and made you a better man, you would be just like the person you criticize, and in fact, you were once just like him.  Because of the grace you received, you should be a kind and gracious person to those who need that same grace.  It is through those good works that those men see a difference and are potentially won to the Lord.  Face it, everyone in the world complains about those in rule over them, those who are kind to them will stand out and make an impression.

at least that is where I saw the progression going....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Christian Markle]

1. The way this bible study format works is that someone (for this study that someone is me) starts a subject and sort of keeps the thread on the subject matter and, in this case, as I load lessons up anyone who wants to comment, discuss, agree or disagree may do so (hopefully in a friendly manner). If I need to clarify anything that I said please let me know.

Thank you, I will indeed attempt to keep any disagreements friendly.

2. Yes we are one Chapter 3:1. When people comment I try and respond in an appropriate manner. 

Excellent, we are using Titus 2:11-3:8 as our passage for memorization for this year in our Adult Sunday School Class. It is my responsibility to lead a similar teaching/discussion. I look forward to the interaction.

One last thought, since you are just coming to this thread, if you have any comments on any of the earlier lessons in Titus, or lessons that were a blessing to you, please let us know.

I appreciate the welcome and invite to go back to previously discussed passages, but this may unnecessarily bog down the present discussion. I do think that the broader "flow of thought" for this section of the book begins with 2:1, but that really is going back pretty far. 3:1-8 is a powerful passage on a number of fronts and is certainly worthy of our attention.

Glad to have  you in this discussion of Titus.

Alan

Thank you again for the warm welcome!

For His glory,

Christian Markle

[Christian Markle]

what I see as the flow of thought is, Paul is admonishing not to speak ill of any man (this would include those in authority over us, whether it be church leadership or secular) and he "justifies" it by reminding that before we were saved we had a lot of sinful, contentious behaviors.  Basically -- except for the grace of God that brought you salvation and made you a better man, you would be just like the person you criticize, and in fact, you were once just like him.  Because of the grace you received, you should be a kind and gracious person to those who need that same grace.  It is through those good works that those men see a difference and are potentially won to the Lord.  Face it, everyone in the world complains about those in rule over them, those who are kind to them will stand out and make an impression.

at least that is where I saw the progression going....

Sister, you have indeed seen a similar flow of thought to what I have also noticed. I would add that this is not just about our communication, but in how we behave. Further I would suggest that this passage offers us specific information on how we are to respond to those who are indeed "not nice" to us. I would suggest the following as a summary: "How to deal with people who irritate you."

I am regularly reminded that I have been treated way better by God than I would prefer to treat others -- oh, how gospel grace teaches and trains us to live differently (Titus 2:11-12).

Two things of significance for preachers: Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is telling Titus what to preach on ("Put them in mind" has the idea of "remind them"); furthermore in vs 8, he tells him to regularly affirm these things so that we who are believers will be careful to maintain good works. We who preach should take note of Spirit inspired commands on preaching topics!

There is much here for meditation toward sanctification of our character and behavior, but I sense that we are supposed to be focused on vs 1 for now.

[Christian Markle]

Does anybody else have any thoughts, comments, or areas of discussion that you would like to see discussed?

Alan

I agree that the point of 3:1a,b is our submissive response to government. The emphasis on levels of government officials (principalities, powers, magistrates) certainly pushes us to respond with obedience and submission at each level of government. (There are exceptions, but these should be for clear and direct demands against the clear and direct commands of the Lord our God (cf. Acts 5:29).) However, vs 1-2 offer 5 subjects of responsibility which Titus was to remind his hearers of  (that is 5 if we separate out subjection of principalities and powers and obedience to magistrates as 2 separate responsiblities). Ought we not also think through the last phrase of vs 1 as well as the we do the beginning of the verse?

[Alan]

Trapperhoney,

Thank you very much for your comments on the responsibility of Christian behavoir towards leadership. As God instituted government (church, local, rulers, etc...), we should obey the leadership above us as ultimately all leaders in all aspects of life will give a full accounting, (lost or saved), for all of the decisions (good or bad), that they made and will be rewarded accordingly. I fully understand that the lost rulers of this world, and other leaders in areas of importance (including churches), cannot comprehend the judgment to come on all decisions and laws, the judgment will take place nonetheless. Acts 24:25

Christian Markle said, "There is much here for meditation toward sanctification of our character and behavior, but I sense that we are supposed to be focused on vs 1 for now."

Throughout the book of Titus the Apostle Paul dwells on our character and our sanctification. If I needed to put a title on the flow of thought on 3:1-8 I would probably write, "Sanctify Yourselves."

Alan

[Alan]

The Tongue

Titus 3:2

     (2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

One of the hardest things to control is our tongue. James 3:8, “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.”

Maybe that is why God only gave us one tongue and two ears so that we would listen more than we would speak. God is against all forms of evil. This includes speaking evil of others, gossiping, and spreading false rumors about others by mouth or by print. Even if a fault is found out against a brother, it is best to let God judge him and keep our mouths shut and our pens silent. We are living in an age when even Christian writers are slandering brothers in Christ for any reason under the sun. Brethren, we need to stop printing slanderous material about anybody. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” 1 Corinthians 15:33

Remember Job? Job was a righteous man who suffered much for having integrity. Yet, his so-called friends judged him day after day and spoke evil of him while he was in the midst of extreme suffering. All through the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, continually accused Job with lies, half-lies, slanders, and innuendoes. Finally, God put an end to it. God told Jobs’ three friends to stop their lies, Job 42:7-9.

Like Job’s friends, God will judge those who slander, by mouth, or by pen, a brother in Christ. King David warned us about this matter in Psalms 50:19-21, “Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slenderest thine own mother’s son. These things hast thou done, and I [God] kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such as one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.” God will judge, and reprove, all those who slander a fellow Christian, especially a man of God in the ministry. Psalms 105:15 clearly states, “Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.”

Brethren, God hates slander, gossiping, innuendoes, and other forms of backbiting.” These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:16-18

We ought to carefully weigh all the facts when we deal with men and not judge people carelessly. Remember what the Lord Jesus said when we had a problem with another saint? We are supposed to go directly to the person and talk with him. If that did not resolve the conflict, then we were supposed to go the pastor of the church that he was in, (not the church of the one accusing the brother), and then discuss it with the pastor.  and two or three witnesses and then take the matter before the church: Matthew 18:15-17.

Very importantly, if the brother in question was a minister, then there must be at least two or three witnesses even before the matter was heard: 1 Timothy 5:19

I know there are brethren that just love to pick verbal religious fights and spread slander about the character, and work, of a fellow pastor, evangelist, or missionary. The best advice that I know is to just avoid them and not answer them, if possible. Why? Usually, those who want to have verbal and written fights are foolish and unreasonable men who do not really want the truth anyway. We need to take the advice given by King Solomon in Proverbs 26:4, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him, ” And, Proverbs 10:18 and 19, “He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.”

God wants His people to develop within themselves a gentle and meek spirit. This is in direct contrast to a prideful, boastful, and brawling attitude. Paul said it best in Ephesians 4:1 and 2, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.”

We need to be longsuffering and put up with those who are brawlers, evil and have other character defects. As Christ put up with us before we were saved, and before we were sanctified, I might add, so must we try to develop a non-judgmental attitude towards others. The Apostle Paul said, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up ... Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” 1 Corinthians 13: 4 and 7. We should strive to have a non-judgmental attitude in our hearts.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Alan
correction

[Christian Markle]

Now that we have included vs 2 may I make some observations?

In Titus 3:1-2 Paul commands Titus to regularly remind the Cretan believers of 5 responsibilities. Grammatically the list looks like this:

Put them in mind

to be subject to principalities and powers,

to obey magistrates,

to be ready to every good work,

To speak evil of no man,

to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

1) They are to have a submissive attitude toward governmental authorities.

2) They are to actually obey governmental authorities.

3) They are to be prepared (ready for immediate action) for all kinds of good works.

4) They are not to speak with the intent of malice toward anyone

5) They are not to be a brawler (ready for a fight, a chip on the shoulder) - instead they are to be gentile and displaying all kinds of meekness toward all.

 

There is much to explore here. Like what does it mean to be ready for every good work? What does that look like practically speaking? What forms of communication are evil speaking and what forms of communication although not pleasant are actually right not evil? What does it mean to be a brawler? What does gentleness look like?

Although I am interested in all of these questions, I would like to emphasis only one specific idea. Why the emphasis in the last phrase of vs 2 -- ALL meekness toward ALL men? This I believe really sets the stage for the rest of the passage (vs 3-8). May I suggest that the universal nature of this responsibility draws out from us a natural question? HOW IN THE WORLD CAN I DO THAT WITH EVERYONE? And the answer is found in our recall of our own evil depravity toward God (vs 3) and His merciful response to us (vs 4-8). Note that the notion of the preparation "to every good work" is repeated in vs 8 in the phrase "be careful to maintain good works." The point of vss 3-7 then is to help us know what to review constantly so we will respond properly when it very hard to respond properly.

For the glory of His grace,

Christian Markle

Edited September 23, 2015 by Christian Markle

[Christian Markle]

We ought to carefully weigh all the facts when we deal with men and not judge people carelessly. Remember what the Lord Jesus said when we had a problem with another saint? We are supposed to go directly to the person and talk with him. If that did not resolve the conflict, then we were supposed to go the pastor of the church that he was in, (not the church of the one accusing the brother), and then discuss it with the pastor. Matthew 18:15-17. If these steps are not taken then it would be best, and spiritual I might add, to not judge our brother and drop the matter. And, very importantly, if the brother in question was a minister, then there must be at least two or three witnesses even before the matter was heard. 

Does Matthew 18 actually teach that we are to take our unresolved personal conflicts to our spiritual leaders? It seems that if the first step (private confrontation vs 15) does not win back the brother then it is not time to get a Pastor, but to get other spiritual brothers to go as witnesses (Matthew 18:16). These witness do not need to be fully informed (so as to be "on the side" of one brother or the other, but come to hear the case. These witness appear to fulfill two purposes: 1) to be able to establish every word (vs 16) and 2) that they may speak into the situation so as to be heard (vs 17). This does not need to be a Pastor. I suggest that Paul saw the believers of Rome to be fully able to admonish one another because they had two characteristics: 2) full of goodness and 1) full of all knowledge (Romans 15:14). Jesus does not say go to your pastor, he says take two or three witnesses. If these are not heard, then one may take it to the church (again not to the pastor per se, but to the assembly). The congregation may then rule on the matter. If this ruling is then ignored then there is to be treatment such as a heathen and/or publican (vs 17).

You are correct that not all matters are worthy of this progression. I think it is possible to allow love to cover and mercy to prevail at any stage of this process. The determining factors however, should be the potential spiritual damage if one backs off. We are indeed called to forbear one another in love (Ephesians 4:2).

For His glory,

Christian Markle

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Another reason I don't believe Mt 18 requires the pastor to be one of these witnesses (notice I said didn't require him as one as opposed to a prohibition from him being one) is that it would eliminate a check and balance in the church. What I'm referring to is a situation where the person in the wrong is the pastor himself, the same Mt 18 process applies to him which couldn't be done if you HAD TO HAVE the pastor as one of the witnesses. 

Then there's the issue of not having a pastor at the time of an issue that won't wait. They had that problem here shortly before they called me. They had to put a man out at a time when there was not a pastor here and no indication as to when there would be one.

Edited September 23, 2015 by OLD fashioned preacher

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎9‎月‎23‎日 at 10:26 AM, Christian Markle said:

Does Matthew 18 actually teach that we are to take our unresolved personal conflicts to our spiritual leaders? It seems that if the first step (private confrontation vs 15) does not win back the brother then it is not time to get a Pastor, but to get other spiritual brothers to go as witnesses (Matthew 18:16). These witness do not need to be fully informed (so as to be "on the side" of one brother or the other, but come to hear the case. These witness appear to fulfill two purposes: 1) to be able to establish every word (vs 16) and 2) that they may speak into the situation so as to be heard (vs 17). This does not need to be a Pastor. I suggest that Paul saw the believers of Rome to be fully able to admonish one another because they had two characteristics: 2) full of goodness and 1) full of all knowledge (Romans 15:14). Jesus does not say go to your pastor, he says take two or three witnesses. If these are not heard, then one may take it to the church (again not to the pastor per se, but to the assembly). The congregation may then rule on the matter. If this ruling is then ignored then there is to be treatment such as a heathen and/or publican (vs 17).

You are correct that not all matters are worthy of this progression. I think it is possible to allow love to cover and mercy to prevail at any stage of this process. The determining factors however, should be the potential spiritual damage if one backs off. We are indeed called to forbear one another in love (Ephesians 4:2).

For His glory,

Christian Markle

 

On ‎2015‎年‎9‎月‎23‎日 at 10:51 AM, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Another reason I don't believe Mt 18 requires the pastor to be one of these witnesses (notice I said didn't require him as one as opposed to a prohibition from him being one) is that it would eliminate a check and balance in the church. What I'm referring to is a situation where the person in the wrong is the pastor himself, the same Mt 18 process applies to him which couldn't be done if you HAD TO HAVE the pastor as one of the witnesses. 

Then there's the issue of not having a pastor at the time of an issue that won't wait. They had that problem here shortly before they called me. They had to put a man out at a time when there was not a pastor here and no indication as to when there would be one.

Matthew 18:16, "But  if he will hear thee, then take with thee one of two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

The Lord does not specifally say one of the witnesses must be the pastor. I will change the lesson to reflect the item noted.

Matthew 18:17, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

In the strictest sense, both Christian Markle and Old Fashioned preacher are correct; the word pastor and/or bishop, and/or overseer, is not mentioned. And there are some cases when the pastor is the one accused (by two witnesses), where it is obvious the transgression is held before the church body with the pastor as the one accused.

The reason why I said to bring it before the pastor as the pastor is the head of the visible church and the representative of Christ; 1 Peter 5:1-4

As 1 Timothy 3:1-7;5:1 & 17-19, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 are further revelations from Paul and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the office of the Pastor (bishop or overseer), as the visible head of the local church I believe it is completely appropriate to say that (except in extreme circumstances), the pastor must be present for any accusations brought before the church body.  

Furthermore, a church without  a head is an incomplete body. If a decision was made to expel the accused individual from the church without the consent of the pastor it  would be, in my estimation, not appropriate. Be that as it may, I will not belabor the point mentioned. 

Alan

Edited August 22, 2016 by Alan
scripture addition spelling Auh. 22, 2016

[Christian Markle]

 

Matthew 18:16, "But  if he will hear thee, then take with thee one of two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

The Lord does not specifally say one of the witnesses must be the pastor. I will change the lesson to reflect the item noted.

Matthew 18:17, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

In the strictest sense, both Christian Markle and Old Fashioned preacher are correct; the word pastor and/or bishop, and/or overseer, is not mentioned. And there are some cases when the pastor is the one accused (by two witnesses), where it is obvious the transgression is held before the church body with the pastor as the one accused.

The reason why I said to bring it before the pastor as the pastor is the head of the visible church and the representative of Christ; 1 Peter 5:1-4

As 1 Timothy 3:1-7;5:1 & 17-19, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 are further revelations from Paul and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the office of the Pastor (bishop or overseer), as the visible head of the local church I believe it is completely appropriate to say that (except in exteme circumstances), the pastor must be present for any accusations brought before the church body.  

Furthermore, a church without  a head is an incomplete body. If a decision was made to expel the accused individual from the church without the consent of the pastor it  would be, in my estimation, not appropriate. Be that as it may, I will not belabor the point mentioned. 

Alan

Brother Alan,

I am thankful for your clarification on Matthew 18. I think you are on safer ground with that.

I would like to press your view of the Pastor a bit. The Biblical text only gives headship in the church to one person, Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19). We pastors are not heads; we are overseers (ie managers). We do not preside as lords over believer-priests (1 Peter 5:3 cf 2:5,9); we are not the mediators between God and the church. We are the teachers of doctrine; this is how we lead, feed and protect the flock. The congregation makes the decisions in the area of discipline (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5). Christ died for the church; it is God's flock (1 Peter 5:2)., Christ is the chief shepherd (vs 4); we are simply His under-shepherds. I do not think it is an oversight by Christ to not mention church leadership in Matthew 18. This certainly does not exclude the pastor from the process, but it does not demand his involvement either. The pastor's role is to teach the principles of conflict resolution; he certainly may be a witness in the second step. He may also guide the church through the third and implementing the fourth step, but he certainly is not the "visible head" of the church...Christ is the church's ONLY head.

For the glory of Christ in His Church

Christian Markle

:

Edited September 23, 2015 by Christian Markle

[Alan]

The Lord Jesus is the head of the church; that is indisputable. But, at this time the Lord Jesus is not, "visible." Please note in my post I made careful note that He is not visible at this time and that the pastor of the church is the "visible," head of the local church.

In the qualifications for the pastor we read, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For is a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3:4 and 5 The pastor is to rule the local church as a man rules his household.

This does not mean being a dictator or other forms of miss-rule. I fully understand that many pastors are not fit for the office in our day and age but that still does not change the order of the New Testament, local, Independent, Baptist church.

And, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." 1 Timothy 5:17 The elders, pastors, who rule "well," are worthy of double honour. Those pastors who do not rule "well," will be denied the crown and taken care of accordingly at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

The pastor is the under-Shepherd of the visible, local, church and is to "rule," the church in the absence of the Chief Shepherd. The pastor is to rule the church as the personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, those pastors who are faithful "rulers," will receive a crown as a reward for doing so. "And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:4

Alan

Edited September 24, 2015 by Alan
spelling