Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Requirements for Pastors

Rate this topic


Salyan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Lady Administrators
13 minutes ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

I think we just had a breakdown in communication. What I disagreed with was the implication that the only way to recognize that 'communication'  involved more than 'vocalization' was via the Greek.

Using just one of the aforementioned verses:

This is obviously far more involved than merely spoken words .

 

And (Though we both know better than to begin a sentence with a conjunction, just as a preposition is something we wouldn't end a sentence with.) if anyone honestly thinks you are bashing, they have a huge chip precariously perched upon their shoulder while standing outside in a hurricane.

Ok - yes, I did misunderstand.  However, I have heard many a preacher who disdains looking anything up in the Greek (but who uses a modern dictionary) teach that those verses are talking about our speech. Yes, context should show that. But, for many people (how's that for making it more generalized? =D ), the only way they know what it truly means is that they are taught the meaning. Some people are taught the meaning of the word from the Greek, while others stick with the modern dictionary, not realizing that modern english is not comparable in many ways to Old English (and the Greek from whence those words come).

 

hehehe - thanks for that, but I did want to specify so that folks don't think I've got an agenda against anyone.

And I guess I didn't bow out, did I? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

The word for "Children" in the KJB is both singular and plural. And there is NO mandate to have a certain number of children in order to pastor. That is a creation of man, and has become a tradition. It puts an onerous burden on people and is why Christ warned of taking for truth tradition of men.

To tell someone who is called of God to pastor that he is not qualified because GOD (who, anyone who knows anything about the KJB 

knows is  the giver of children) did not give him children (or only gave him 1', or took his children through death) is a cruel, ungodly trick of the devil.

You are taking away from the scriptures and adding to it ma'am.  It says children and it is plainly written as plural.  In denying the obvious, you're then projecting onto me what you yourself are doing.  I also do not believe you've truly read and absorbed each and every word in those passages.  It does say MUST, it's not optional as some have claimed.  If optional, then the pastor could be a brawler and not even the husband of one wife!  Nonsense!

As to your last, if a pastor doesn't have, cannot have or lost his children in the context of those verses, he was NEVER called by God to begin with.  It's nonsensical to say that a man was called by God but since he has no kids, or one kid, we can ignore or redefine the plural definition of the word children into meaning singular.  Child is the singular form of children and if the Lord meant at least one child the translators would have written it to be so.

Edited by swathdiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Eph_6:1  Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Col_3:20  Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

So, if these children (always plural) have a parent die (now making it singular) do the children still have to obey?

 

Not trying to be overtly sarcastic (it comes naturally) but you asked if there was anything else that might bolster or detract from said views.

Okay, I'm bowing out lest it begin to look like "bash Swathdiver day"

Huh?  A child has to obey their mother and father; their parents.  Do they have to obey their father if their mother dies are you asking?  Of course, and their dead mother too.  Just because momma told them to clean their room and their dad didn't, doesn't mean they can leave it a mess now that momma is gone and dad hasn't said so himself.  

It says what it says and we cannot add to it or change it without being accursed.  Can you think of any more, "Yeah, but" scenarios?  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
11 hours ago, swathdiver said:

You are taking away from the scriptures and adding to it ma'am.  It says children and it is plainly written as plural.  In denying the obvious, you're then projecting onto me what you yourself are doing.  I also do not believe you've truly read and absorbed each and every word in those passages.  It does say MUST, it's not optional as some have claimed.  If optional, then the pastor could be a brawler and not even the husband of one wife!  Nonsense!

As to your last, if a pastor doesn't have, cannot have or lost his children in the context of those verses, he was NEVER called by God to begin with.  It's nonsensical to say that a man was called by God but since he has no kids, or one kid, we can ignore or redefine the plural definition of the word children into meaning singular.  Child is the singular form of children and if the Lord meant at least one child the translators would have written it to be so.

I'm taking away nor adding nothing. You are ignoring what the wording means in both the Greek and the Old English. In denying that, you are projecting onto me what you yourself are doing. Ergo, it is YOU that are taking away.

As to my not reading and absorbing what's in that passage, you don't know what you're talking about. "MUST" does not mean he "MUST" have children, but that IF he does he MUST have them under control. To try and equate the command not to be a brawler to the command that if one has children they must be under his control is what is nonsense. 

You keep saying the plural definition of the word children. What I find highly amusing is that you are using the MODERN dictionary definition while you claim that you only use the KJV. Sorry, but that word does not always mean multiple kiddos, no matter how you try and twist it.  

To claim that every pastor who's never been given children by God is not actually called to preach is quite a bit of hubris on your part. You are treading on some really dangerous grounds there. 

Not using the Greek to learn what words mean is not any more spiritual than using the Greek is. But refusing to heed what a word actually means in its origin is a kind of stubbornness that is not holiness.

 

(and, by the way - No, no, no, A CHILD does NOT have to obey his/her parents...the only time there needs to be obedience is if there are MULTIPLE children. Because the verse says, "children." If the translators had meant that those children who have no siblings are to obey their parents, they would have said so [please not: that was sarcasm]. THAT's where this type of thinking leads...) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's painfully clear that some here are grammatically challenged and like me cannot diagram a sentence, something 4th grade christian children are taught to do (ABeka).  Thankfully, my A+/100 grade earning daughter Julia was happy to oblige her old man and confirm through the rules of grammar what the Holy Ghost had already taught her dad.

 

I shall say no more on this topic at this time.  Only the Holy Ghost, through a submissive heart, can teach things hard to be understood.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If we're going to take the qualifications of the Bishop to the extreme that I am reading, then we have to ask...

"At what point do a Pastor's children cease being his chillren?"

The truth is, they do not cease being the Pastor's children even if they move out and/or get married.

A child that leaves his father and mother does not cease being the child of his father and mother. So, must a Pastor step down from being a Pastor just because his married son, who lives miles away from the Pastor got drunk, or committed some other sin?  Of course not!

But that seems to be the only logical end to the argument that children MUST be in subjection. 

ps... I like the point about Colossians 3:20 saying ""children" are to obey their parents, so a single "child" doesn't have to obey"  It sheds some perspective one what Paul acutally means when he spoke of "children".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...