Jump to content
Online Baptist

Salyan

Requirements for Pastors

Recommended Posts

This is an offshoot of the thread on Looking for a Local Church. I wanted to respond to the comment on pastors/children without taking that thread off-topic.

35 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Consider this.  A NT church plants another in a nearby town.  However, the pastor they chose has only one child.  After several years the pastor has multiple children.  So when the new church was planted it did not have a qualified pastor but in time he became qualified and the church is now scriptural.

I disagree with the view that a pastor must have more than one child to be legitimate. He could have no children at all and be legitimate. I believe the passage is speaking more to a leader's need to correctly train and lead whatever family God may give him. To make it say anything else puts a burden on people that they have no control over (what if there are medical reasons preventing children? or children die?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

Exactly, Salyan.

The word used for children in both passages listing the qualifications has the meaning of both singular and plural.

If, in fact, it is required that there be more than one child, then in a family with only one child, that child would not have to obey the admonition "Children, obey your parents."  I know, that sounds silly. But that is the logical end of the thought. And 1 Cor 7:14 would only apply to people with more than one child. Etc., etc.

When God calls a man, that man can disqualify himself. But God is the giver of children, and if He chooses to only give that man one child (or none), He would be a capricious God should He require multiple children for a man to qualify as pastor and then not give them to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put another way: the wife has 2 miscarriages and a child that dies @ 2 months old. They have no living children and she is no longer able to conceive. Can he pastor? They have 3 children but none are in the home. (I personally know a similar case -- just a couple of particulars changed). What if the 2 children each die before adulthood, before puberty, before weaning? Not being belligerent, looking for serious response (remember, not all pastors are in the US, Canada, UK or Australia and not all pastors in other countries are American).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a NT church? The Brethren claimed to be this when they began in Ireland when they read that believers met from house to house breaking bread.  They soon moved from that to being exclusive, only those who agreed with them when only those who agreed with them,  were allowed o break bread.

nioned



 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." - Titus 1:6

 

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

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

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." - Titus 1:5

 

The Greek word for 'children' in those passages is teknon. In Matthew 21:28, teknon is translated both 'sons' (plural) and 'son' (singular). When Jesus was talking to the man sick of the palsy in Matthew 9:2, He called him 'son' (teknon).  Your argument creates an unsustainable doctrine out of translational semantics.

Revelation 12:5 speaks of the child of the woman, Who should rule all nations with a rod of iron, as a teknon. By the above reasoning, Jesus, rather than being the Only Begotten Son, King of Kings & Lord of Lords, would be one of a multitude of rulers/gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

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

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." - Titus 1:5

 

Yep, my question though was how long do the children have to live to fulfill the above. If he begins the pastorate when his kids are 2 months and 3 years of age and they die in the car wreck that leaves his surviving wife unable to conceive 14 months into his pastorate ------ must he resign?

Or, if he pastors in Myanmar and the kids die in the RPG attack on the church?

Or, does Mainland China not have any Biblical churches or pastors due the one child law that was in effect for half a century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Salyan said:

Consider this.  A NT church plants another in a nearby town.  However, the pastor they chose has only one child.  After several years the pastor has multiple children.  So when the new church was planted it did not have a qualified pastor but in time he became qualified and the church is now scriptural.

So according to your interpretation if a pastor has two children and one or both die, he is disqualified from being a pastor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Invicta said:

So according to your interpretation if a pastor has two children and one or both die, he is disqualified from being a pastor?

Check your quotes. Swathdiver said that, not me. I'm disagreeing with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verses on children are not a mandate to have children, but, rather, a mandate to make sure those children (whether one or 100) under the pastor's roof are also under his control.  To try and force into the qualifications passages the demand for having multiple children is crafting a tradition of man rather than just obeying the Word.

And then comes OFP's point - if a pastor has children and some or all of them die, is he then disqualified? That's the trouble with traditions of men. Not only do they not hold up scripturally, they don't hold up logically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Salyan said:

Check your quotes. Swathdiver said that, not me. I'm disagreeing with it. 

Sorry Salyan I don't know how that happened, I thought I was relying to Swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

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

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" - 1 Timothy 3:2-4

 

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

 

"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." - Titus 1:6

 

         As for me and my house, the King James Bible is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice and do not have to rely upon the Greek for correctly understanding the scriptures.  God preserved his Word in the King James and it is perfect and inerrant.  Having said that, let’s dig in, shall we?

 

         Under the rules of grammar regarding 1 Timothy 3:2-4, we must examine the entire sentence to gain context.   This means “a bishop then must be” applies to each requirement (grammatically a predicate adjective) in the sentence.  These include: blameless, husband, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given, apt, given, striker, greedy, patient, brawler, covetous, one, and having.  A bishop then must be having his children in subjection…  Children is the plural form of child.  Child is singular, meaning one.  Plural means two or more.  The bishop must have children.

 

         Now let’s address 1 Timothy 3:12. “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” means each deacon be a husband of one wife.  “Ruling their children” means each deacon must rule his children.  The word “their” could be either singular or plural and pertains to all of the deacons in ruling their own children.  This verse could be taken either way, children in the general sense.

 

         For Titus 1:6, “If any be” is akin to anyone, any one man and again lists the predicate adjectives/requirements which include blameless, husband and having.  This plainly states that a requirement for ordaining elders is for the elder to have one wife and children.  Children is again here plural else the translators would have written one child like they wrote one wife.

 

         In the context of verses 18 through 22 in Colossians 3, we can understand that Paul was speaking to ALL wives, ALL husbands, ALL children, ALL fathers, and ALL servants, each being in the plural.

 

         1 Corinthians 7:14 speaks of children in a general sense as we speak of the church elsewhere in the scriptures.  Sometimes it means many churches other times a specific church and so on.

 

          As for the situations where children die at varying times, well, these 3 sentences and five verses use children in the present and it would then seem to me that if a man was called to preach he would always have more than two living children during his ministry as pastor.  What about adult living children that die?  I don’t know and haven’t prayed for wisdom on such.

 

          Some have not carefully chosen their words for they are contradictory.  They are making the scriptures say something because of their beliefs.  We need to all, myself included, take the scriptures literally and not read into them lest we make them say something that isn’t so.

 

         In summary, the scriptures show that a pastor must have more than one child, children, that are in subjection and are not accused of riot or unruly.  This teaches us that the pastor’s children must be of age to understand subjection and good behavior.  Remember, he’s not to be a novice either.

 

         Many thanks to my daughter, Julia, for helping Dad diagram sentences.  I know what I know through prayer and study but she helped show me the mechanics of it so I, we, could shed more light on the subject with you all.

Edited by swathdiver
To Correct Formatting Losses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in other words, Mainland China has not had anyone qualified as a pastor in over half a century. Therefore, they have not had a Scriptural N.T. church in over half a century.

Thank you for your answer, if this is not consistent with your answer feel free to explain why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the communist China's one child policy.  I'm also aware that many of her people have successfully ignored it.  I have never been to China and thus cannot comment on the state of New Testament Churches in that country.  This is akin to saying "Yeah, But..."  The bible says what it says and I'm not going to try to make it say something it doesn't.  Maybe there are more verses that shed light on this subject? 

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the rules of grammar, proper diagramming means knowing what the words mean. Unless and until one knows what the words mean, it is a futile exercise to try and parse.

An example would be that of the old english word "conversation." That word now means a dialog between 2 or more people. However, that is not what it means in the KJV. And, no, you cannot glean just from the context what it means. You actually have to go back to the old english AND the greek. I realize that to many people that is considered verboten, but that's the truth of the matter, else you will be teaching untrue things about God's Word. The old english "conversation" would include our words, but in the KJB, it means every action/lifestyle.

Now, before folks get on their dudgeon and claim that they don't need the greek, realize one thing: if you know that the word "conversation" in the KJB means more than just speech, it is because someone who looked into the greek passed it on either to you or the one who taught you what it means.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

 realize one thing: if you know that the word "conversation" in the KJB means more than just speech, it is because someone who looked into the greek passed it on either to you or the one who taught you what it means.

 

I'm going to disagree with this statement because these

(Gal_1:13  For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Eph_2:3  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Jas_3:13  Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.)

all seem to be more than speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

I'm going to disagree with this statement because these

(Gal_1:13  For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Eph_2:3  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Jas_3:13  Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.)

all seem to be more than speech.

Not meaning to argue, but if you look at the greek from which all three of those come (anostrophe) - it's talking about behavior.

And I'm most certainly not meaning to bash anyone. I hope nobody feels that I am.

I shall also bow out, because I think anyone who reads this knows I disagree that multiple children is required. Only a capricious God would call a man to preach and then not give him the "required" amount of children and keep them all alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Not meaning to argue, but if you look at the greek from which all three of those come (anostrophe) - it's talking about behavior.

And I'm most certainly not meaning to bash anyone. I hope nobody feels that I am.

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:

4 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Eph_2:3  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

×