Unmarried Youth Pastor, OK??

I am sorry if I jumped on you, it just sounded like you weren't being very friendily.

No problems. (I still disagree with your view on this topic though.)

Jamie

 

It's hypothetical but very revealing. The Savior of the church and the church's greatest missionary and church planter could not even pastor your church and you don't see a problem with that.

This whole thing is based off a misunderstanding of 1 tim 3 and the "husband of one wife. " The point of 1 Tim 3 and that phrase has nothing to do with his marital status but everything to do with his sexual integrity and purity.

A man can be the husband of one wife and yet be disqualified for being an adulterer. He can be single and yet be qualified because he has sexual integrity. That is why I pointed out that the phrase there is "one woman man." He is to be a man characterized by sexual integrity.

On what grounds would you kick an adulterer out of the ministry if he stays with his wife? You have none really.

 

Also, keep in mind that according to the logic I've seen, in order to be a deacon you must have more than one child.

"Children" is plural in verse 12.

 

Qualifications of a Bishop

Show me how to get out of the logic rbell...here's the scripture, here's the list, which ones are the really important scriptures and which ones should we discard?

1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2A bishop then must be

1. blameless,
   
2. the husband of one wife,
   
3. vigilant,
   
4. sober,
   
5. of good behaviour,
   
6. given to hospitality,
   
7. apt to teach;
   
8. 3Not given to wine,
   
9. no striker,
   
10. not greedy of filthy lucre;
    
11. but patient,
    
12. not a brawler,
    
13. not covetous;
    
14. 4One that ruleth well his own house,
    
15. having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
    
16. 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
    
17. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 

I have always thought of that verse as "not the husband of two wives."

Sorry Rufus, PL has this one right. One wife is merely a sign of a life of moral purity.

 

One would be disqualified from serving if there is evidence of his lack of control over a given area of his life. The underlying qualities of a Godly man should be evident. There should not be mountains of evidence to indicate otherwise:

You know one is not blameless because blame exists.
You know one is a brawler because there's evidence of brawling.
Husband of one wife? Faithfulness & purity. If he's unmarried, that does not make him unfaithful or impure. No disqualification.
Rules house well? Responsible with leadership given to him. Should there not be children...that doesn't make him a poor leader.

I think it is incumbent upon churches that would appoint a widower, one without children, etc., to look further and make sure evidence of the underlying qualities God's word enumerates exist.

And I repeat from earlier...following the logic of some...you cannot be a bishop or deacon if you have one child. "Children" is plural in 1 Timothy 3.

 

There is no statement about "faithful" or "impure". What is your basis for making such a jump?

If we remove "blameless", we have "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." Now how does one spin out of this declarative statement as I don't see an out?

Me: What must a Bishop be?
Bible: A bishop must be the husband of one wife.
Me: What about that single fresh-out who's looking to make a name for himself?
Bible: Is he the husband of one wife?
Me: Well no, he's single.
Bible: Well, he must be the husband of one wife to be a bishop.​

Why can we not trust the Bible for what it says?

 

I see no jump at all. Why would God mention "husband of one wife?" He expects a one-woman man...hence purity and faithfulness.

First of all...why would you wish to remove anything? Secondly...I explained in my previous statement.

Is the above (what I bolded) your opinion of single people? Would the apostle Paul have received that evaluation?

I have no doubt you believe God's Word. It saddens me to think that you think less of me. You're wrong.

 

Proof text for that expectation? You are reading into the verse something that is not there. The expectation stated is that he be the husband of one wife.

To avoid confusion. It's a comma separated list. Sally must buy apples, and oranges. You don't need apples to know that Sally must buy oranges. A bishop must be blameless, a husband of one wife etc. You don't need blameless to know that a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

Not necessarily but it's a possible example of why one would desire to force himself into a role which he is not qualified. As to Paul, I don't believe he was a bishop, should I?

I believe a bishop must be the husband of one wife and I believe scripture backs up this belief or more accurately stated, I have this belief because this is what scripture says.

 

This whole thread is amazing. Paul stated it is better to remain single as I. He could not lead your youth ministry. That is funny!! No that is sad. That passage isn't saying only married people can minister. It is talking about living a "Christ-like" life.

Timothy wasn't married but he pastored a church. He was a young man who God used in a mighty way.

 

What is amazingly sad is how some profess to believe the Bible and know it well, yet, are so ignorant of its riches. What they really know too much of is the words of men rather than the word of God.

So many claim to have mined the richs of God's grace and unknowingly have only gotten dirt.

 

Yes, there is. It is "one woman man." That is a statement about faithfulness and purity.

If you remove the word "must" you take out the requirement altogether. Why would you want to remove any words?

No one here is taking an out. We don't need one. God was not insisting on married pastors. He was insisting on sexually pure pastors. How is that hard to understand?

What about a man whose wife had died? Is he disqualified? Of course not. But according to you he would be.

What about a man who committed adultery but his wife stayed with him? Is he disqualified? Of course, but according to you he would not be since he is still the husband of one wife.

Nicely done. But missed the point of what it "one woman man" means.
​

We can.

 

...then why do any of us get married?

All Christians are to "minister"...but not all Christians are to be Elders / Deacons. It is NOT about living a Christ like life...it's plain requirements laid out if one is to be an Elder / Deacon...which Paul was neither, btw.

 

If being a "one woman man" means faithfulness and purity...were David, Isaac and Jacob considered unfaithful and unpure?

Why is it hard for you to understand that verse 5 gives the reason for this requirement? How can one manage a church "family" without having their own "family". Paul's words...not mine.

Who says he would be disqualified? If he had a wife and family and managed them well, upon death why would he be DQ'd? It's the experience of having a "family" to manage...not the physical title.

Huh? Being married doesn't cover over the other requirements...it's along side them.

Again, verse 5 makes no sense if this is dealing with "one woman man". A single man dating a single woman would not be considered "managing their household well".

 

Paul was an apostle who was responsible for starting several churches and leading several elders (Acts 20)

Everything we do is to be done to the glory of God. That is the standard.

 

Boy oh Boy oh Boy,,, do you really want to go there?!!:laugh: :laugh:

That's an age old question that so many men have been asking years after the wedding!

Do you remember the wedding march...

"Dumb, Dumb, de, Dumb...
Dumb, Dumb, de, Dumb...
Dumb, Dumb, de dumdumb..
de Dumb, Dumb, de Dumb..."

Isn't it just saying the grooms name over and over!!!

 

I'll tell you, but you are not going to like it.

I got married for a number of reasons...

1. I wanted to be married - I know, I was mentally ill at the time.

2. I found a good lady for my future children and didn't want to let her go.

3. I was young and really wanted to satisfy the marital relationship desires. "That's all I am going to say about that" - Forrest Gump

4. I got prayed into marriage by my wife and mother in law. This is not a joke, they really did this and let me know about it as well.

5. I just wanted to be around my wife all my life.

 

Married?

WEDDING MARCH!!! That's why that family was soo mad at me, I thought that was the funeral processional!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

David and Jacob were unfaithful and impure. I don't recall an occasion with Isaac but my memory may be faulty there. They weren't pastors either. and would not be qualified to be pastors.

The issue is about ability to manage. If you read what Paul said you can see that. If he has a family, he must manage them well. If he doesn't, then he shows that he cannot manage the household of God.

See, now you are changing. If your wife dies, you are no longer married and thus not the husband of one wife. By your previous statements, you are disqualified. I think this shows an great inconsistency.

But it is not necessarily covered elsewhere. All the other requirements can be fulfilled by a guy who has committed adultery and stayed with his wife.

It makes perfect sense if you think about what Paul is actually saying.