Bishops/Elder/Pastors required to be married?

[Hopeful 2]

I believe there is a misunderstanding here.
I didn't read all of the posts But I did not see my viewpoint in any that I did read. We see the requirements for bishops, deacons, and elders in 1Timothy and Titus.

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

Titus 1:5-6 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

The criteria is one wife, as opposed to many wives. Polygamy still existed in Paul's day. Paul is saying God set marriage as one man and one woman. That's how it is to be practiced within the Christian church.

So can a person who has never been married, or a widower who was married, be allowed into these positions?
How does the Catholic Church allow for single men to be in these church positions?


Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Where is polygamy ever mentioned in the NT ?
Why do you use the catholic church as your guide to following biblical principals ?

Paul makes it know why a bishop must be married in 1 Tim 3:4-5..."One that ruleth well his own house, 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?)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, Love God above anything else, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Yes.

I wasn't asking you or replying to you.

Not at all, as Paul isn't discussing a bishop's requirements in 1 Cor. 7.

But was he writing to church leaders in Corinth and giving them instructions on marriage? "Bishop" is a unique clerical position in Catholic church, most other churches in America and other countries don't have it, does that mean the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 are irrelevant? Does that mean a pastor or preacher doesn't need to be blameless, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, etc., for those are only qualificatiosn for BISHOP and nobody else?

Where do you get the idea anyone said "we have to be married to serve God" ?

From anybody who reads 1 Tim. 3 in a strictly literal sense without considering the proper context. If you interpret the previous chapter in the same way, you'd be a hardcore misogynist, for Paul demanded women be silent and not allowed to have any teaching authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

If, like Paul, you are going to be a wandering apostle/evangelist, singleness would be preferable.
But if you are going to shepherd a church, one of the thirteen requirements is that you run a family well, first.

So we're playing name games again? Most "shepherds" organize mission trips, travel around the country or even the world, and evangelize in other towns and cities, does that exempt them from the thirteen requirements? This "wandering apostle vs local shepherd" is a false dichotomy.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I wasn't asking you or replying to you.

OK ?

But was he writing to church leaders in Corinth and giving them instructions on marriage?

It seems Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 were more of an observation that any instruction.

"Bishop" is a unique clerical position in Catholic church, most other churches in America and other countries don't have it, does that mean the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 are irrelevant?

"Bishop" is just a synonym for pastor or shepherd.

Does that mean a pastor or preacher doesn't need to be blameless, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, etc., for those are only qualificatiosn for BISHOP and nobody else?

Not at all.

From anybody who reads 1 Tim. 3 in a strictly literal sense without considering the proper context. If you interpret the previous chapter in the same way, you'd be a hardcore misogynist, for Paul demanded women be silent and not allowed to have any teaching authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Don't you adhere to that in your church ?

So we're playing name games again?

Hardly.
Paul wasn't a pastor/bishop.
He was a roving evangelist, wherein singleness suited him more than marriage.

Most "shepherds" organize mission trips, travel around the country or even the world, and evangelize in other towns and cities, does that exempt them from the thirteen requirements?

Nope.
Not as long as they get home frequently enough to keep the household in order.
But if they are pastors of a church, they have the authority to assign others to do that kind of work.

This "wandering apostle vs local shepherd" is a false dichotomy.

Paul was speaking from personal experience.
Singleness suited those who weren't around a home and family very often.
But singleness doesn't suit those who want to be a bishop.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It seems Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 were more of an observation that any instruction.

No, that was his sound advice in response to their thought - “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Cor. 7).

"Bishop" is just a synonym for pastor or shepherd.

Not at all.

Why not? It says bishop and deacons, not pastor or shepherd.

Don't you adhere to that in your church ?

So you're a hardcore misogynist?

Hardly.
Paul wasn't a pastor/bishop.
He was a roving evangelist, wherein singleness suited him more than marriage.

Nope.
Not as long as they get home frequently enough to keep the household in order.
But if they are pastors of a church, they have the authority to assign others to do that kind of work.

Then any pastor or shepherd who travels around can call himself an "evangelist, wherein singleness suited him more than marriage". Again, name game.

Also, one of the "qualifications" says "ruling their children and their own houses well". What if they don't have any children due to infertility? Or tragically, their children have passed away? What if they can't even adopt because the government has banned christians from adoption? Does that disqualify them?

Paul was speaking from personal experience.

No, Paul was not. He was NOT married, not did he have any children.

Singleness suited those who weren't around a home and family very often.
But singleness doesn't suit those who want to be a bishop.

So a "bishop" can't travel around? A "bishop" can't go on a missionary trip? A "bishop" must stay around a home and family very often? The teaching of the Lord contradicts you: “no one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9:62)

 

[D-D-W]

Then tell me why Paul himself who issued this requirement was not married. Was he not a rabbi? A pastor? An overseer? In 1 Cor. 7 he only gave advice on marriage, not commandment, how come that he now mandate church leaders to be married? Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

There is a lot of assumption in that part of your post that needs to be unpacked.
First off, Paul. Yes.,he was a rabbi (teacher), but he was NOT a congregational leader, neither elder/pastor/overseer or a deacon. He was an apostle. Big difference. There is no marital status listed in scripture for either rabbi or apostle.

BTW - it is very likely that Paul was married earlier in life. He was a graduate of the Hillel school of Pharaseeism. (there were 2 schools, Hillel's and Shammai's) We know that because he was trained by Gamaliel, Hillel's grandson. And when they set up their schools in the first century bc, both Hillel and Shammai REQUIRED their students to marry a daughter of the graduate of the other school. So whether she died in childbirth (not uncommon) or divorced him when he started following Jesus, we know that by the time he was an apostle he was not married.

“I say this as a concession, not as a commandment, for I wish that all men were even as I myself, but each one has his own gift, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain as I am.” (1 Cor. 7:6-8)

Please explain to me, again, how Paul himself was NOT “husband of one wife” when he wrote this letter.

This thread is not about 1 Cor 7, but about the marital status of congregational leadership. Yes Paul was not married when he wrote that. But as an apostle, and one writing from the supernatural unction of the Holy Spirit, he could be EXPECTED to write about all kinds of stuff that he had not experienced.

 

[D-D-W]

No, that was his sound advice in response to their thought - “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Cor. 7).

English does not convey that well. "Touch" means to kindle up the emotions.

Why not? It says bishop and deacons, not pastor or shepherd.

Don't get lost in the verbiage. The division comes between local congregational leadership and trans-local ministry. Local leaders must be married.

Then any pastor or shepherd who travels around can call himself an "evangelist, wherein singleness suited him more than marriage". Again, name game.

If he is "traveling around" then he is NOT an elder or pastor or shepherd.

Also, one of the "qualifications" says "ruling their children and their own houses well". What if they don't have any children due to infertility? Or tragically, their children have passed away? What if they can't even adopt because the government has banned christians from adoption? Does that disqualify them?

In such cases one must listen to the Holy Spirit for guidance in each individual situation.

No, Paul was not. He was NOT married, not did he have any children.

And he was NOT an elder or pastor or deacon. He was an apostle.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There is a lot of assumption in that part of your post that needs to be unpacked.
First off, Paul. Yes.,he was a rabbi (teacher), but he was NOT a congregational leader, neither elder/pastor/overseer or a deacon. He was an apostle. Big difference. There is no marital status listed in scripture for either rabbi or apostle.

BTW - it is very likely that Paul was married earlier in life. He was a graduate of the Hillel school of Pharaseeism. (there were 2 schools, Hillel's and Shammai's) We know that because he was trained by Gamaliel, Hillel's grandson. And when they set up their schools in the first century bc, both Hillel and Shammai REQUIRED their students to marry a daughter of the graduate of the other school. So whether she died in childbirth (not uncommon) or divorced him when he started following Jesus, we know that by the time he was an apostle he was not married.

This is irrelevant. The bible doesn't contradict itself, that's the bottom line. A legitimate interpretation of 1 Tim. 3 must not contradict the message in 1 Cor. 7 - keep your marital status or lack thereof, singles remain single, married remain married. (1 Cor. 7:27) So tell me, did it make sense that Paul wrote to the "congregational leaders" in Corinth instead of the "congregation" who were mostly illiterate? If he was writing to congregational leaders, then why did specifically address to the unmarried and widows (7:25)? Why didn't Paul call them out and disqualify them from their positions? Why did he wish them to remain single as he was single? Didn't they have bishops and deacons? How come that there's one set of rules for the Ephesian church and another for the Corinthian church?

This thread is not about 1 Cor 7, but about the marital status of congregational leadership. Yes Paul was not married when he wrote that. But as an apostle, and one writing from the supernatural unction of the Holy Spirit, he could be EXPECTED to write about all kinds of stuff that he had not experienced.

You're making excuses to justify your own opinion which contradicts both the historical practice in the church and Paul's original intention. Paul was simply saying that for those who are ALREADY married, they must be husband of one wife, not multiple, no paramours; for those who've ALREADY had children, keep them in order; but for those who are not married, who have neither wife nor children, they're not disqualified just because of that, that's where 1 Cor. 7:25-40 applies. If we're talking about marital status of congregational leadership, then we must talk about 1 Cor. 7, because the whole chapter is Paul's advice given specifically on the issue of marital status.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

English does not convey that well. "Touch" means to kindle up the emotions.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own truth.

Don't get lost in the verbiage. The division comes between local congregational leadership and trans-local ministry. Local leaders must be married.

You've already gotten lost in the verbiage when you lectured on me about "apostle" and "bishop". For all "local leaders" throughout history who swore a sacred vow to leave all worldly desires and possessions behind to serve the Lord, including their marriage or future plan of marriage, the brave martyrs, the brilliant theologeons, were they all frauds just because they were not married?

If he is "traveling around" then he is NOT an elder or pastor or shepherd.

That's rubbish, most church leaders do travel around, they organize mission trips and pilgrimages. If they stay in their humble abode forever, how do they make disciples in all nations? Wasn't Jesus Christ himself traveling around during his earthly ministry? Didn't Christ teach that "the son of man has no place to lay his head?" Are you saying that the Lord himself is not an elder or pastor or shepherd? Just be honest to yourself, man, read the passage again in the context, don't you feel odd to have marital status juxtaposed with all these other virtues? Don't you think it makes more sense that "husband of ONE WIFE“ is referring to the virtue of fidelity comparable to the other virtues on the list, not marital status?

In such cases one must listen to the Holy Spirit for guidance in each individual situation.

The Holy Spirit has already given guidance to me on this individual situation: "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." I can assure you one thing, that if you read "children" as a hard qualification on the resume, then childbearing will become an idol, overshadowing all the other qualifications on the list. That's proven and recorded history in the Word of God itself, see Sarah, Leah, Rachel and Hannah, all guilty of idolizing childbearing.

And he was NOT an elder or pastor or deacon. He was an apostle.

Again, irrelevant, see #147 above.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, that was his sound advice in response to their thought - “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Cor. 7).

His personal, and not of the Spirit, advice.
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (1 Cor 7:6)

Why not? It says bishop and deacons, not pastor or shepherd.

Do you know what a synonym is?

So you're a hardcore misogynist?

I heed the word's of the Lord's apostles.
If men want to misconstrue the Lord's instructions, that will be to their own peril.
Aren't you a hardcore bible adherent ?

Then any pastor or shepherd who travels around can call himself an "evangelist, wherein singleness suited him more than marriage". Again, name game.

A pastor/bishop won't "travel around".
He has a family and church to tend to.

Also, one of the "qualifications" says "ruling their children and their own houses well". What if they don't have any children due to infertility? Or tragically, their children have passed away? What if they can't even adopt because the government has banned christians from adoption? Does that disqualify them?

Why throw roadblocks in the way of God ?
He knows who He wants to govern His church.
He will make that man meet all His qualifications.

No, Paul was not. He was NOT married, not did he have any children.

You seem to have lost track.
Here is what I wrote..."Paul was speaking from personal experience.
Singleness suited those who weren't around a home and family very often.
But singleness doesn't suit those who want to be a bishop.

So a "bishop" can't travel around? A "bishop" can't go on a missionary trip? A "bishop" must stay around a home and family very often? The teaching of the Lord contradicts you: “no one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9:62)

A bishop can go on a trip, but that is far different than traveling for months at a time.

 

[BB1956]

Hopeful2 said,
"The single man is like a someone applying for a job, without a resume." [/Quote\]

God isn't ignorant of how a Christian man is suppose to behave toward his spiritual brothers and sisters, or how the Christian man is to behave toward his wife and children. It's God's Holy Spirit that teaches by influencing the Christian man how he is to behave toward his wife and children, how the Christian man is to manage his house. How the Christian man is to behave toward his wife and children doesn't originate from the Christian man it originates from God. How a Christian man is to behave toward his spiritual brothers and sisters originates from God. So it's God who teaches Christian men and women how to behave toward one another. So just as God can teach a Christian man how to manage his house by teaching him how he is to behave toward his wife and children, God with his Holy Spirit can teach the Christian single man how to manage God's house. God isn't ignorant how his house is to be managed, so God with his Holy Spirit can pass this information or teach any Christian man whether he's single or married how his house is to be managed, it has nothing to do with a resume any Christian man has. It has to do with whether or not the Christian man is listening and being obedient to God's Holy Spirit when God is teaching him how he is to manage God's house. The reason the scriptures say if the Christian man can't manage his own house, how can he manage the house of God is because, the Christian man wasn't listening and obeying God when God with his Holy Spirit was trying to influence him how the Christian man was to manage his own house. God can inform any Christian man married or single how he is to manage God's house but the Christian man has to be obedient to what God is teaching him, and that has nothing to do with whether the Christian man is married or not, it just has to do with him being obedient to God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Hopeful2 said,
"The single man is like a someone applying for a job, without a resume." [/Quote\]

God isn't ignorant of how a Christian man is suppose to behave toward his spiritual brothers and sisters,

That is right, so a single, Christian man, won't be applying for the job of bishop.

or how the Christian man is to behave toward his wife and children. It's God's Holy Spirit that teaches by influencing the Christian man how he is to behave toward his wife and children, how the Christian man is to manage his house. How the Christian man is to behave toward his wife and children doesn't originate from the Christian man it originates from God. How a Christian man is to behave toward his spiritual brothers and sisters originates from God. So it's God who teaches Christian men and women how to behave toward one another. So just as God can teach a Christian man how to manage his house by teaching him how he is to behave toward his wife and children, God with his Holy Spirit can teach the Christian single man how to manage God's house. God isn't ignorant how his house is to be managed, so God with his Holy Spirit can pass this information or teach any Christian man whether he's single or married how his house is to be managed, it has nothing to do with a resume any Christian man has. It has to do with whether or not the Christian man is listening and being obedient to God's Holy Spirit when God is teaching him how he is to manage God's house. The reason the scriptures say if the Christian man can't manage his own house, how can he manage the house of God is because, the Christian man wasn't listening and obeying God when God with his Holy Spirit was trying to influence him how the Christian man was to manage his own house. God can inform any Christian man married or single how he is to manage God's house but the Christian man has to be obedient to what God is teaching him, and that has nothing to do with whether the Christian man is married or not, it just has to do with him being obedient to God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

His personal, and not of the Spirit, advice.
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (1 Cor 7:6)

It's not a commandment only because it was not one-size-fits-all, Paul wished all were unmarried as he was, but for some in that congregation who were already married, they should remain married, even if they married an unbeliever. That is of the Spirit as much as any other word of God.

Do you know what a synonym is?

Do you know what a name game is?

I heed the word's of the Lord's apostles.
If men want to misconstrue the Lord's instructions, that will be to their own peril.
Aren't you a hardcore bible adherent ?

I do adhere by this: "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." You're the one who misconstrues the Lord's instructions, you have no spirit to comprehend it in proper context. If you pride yourself as a "hardcore bible adherent", then enlighten me, should women be allowed to teach the word of God in any capacity, including teaching in children's or women's ministry?

A pastor/bishop won't "travel around".
He has a family and church to tend to.

A bishop can go on a trip, but that is far different than traveling for months at a time.

Where is this definition in the bible? Which requirement puts such a leash on a pastor/bishop? This is totally made up.

Why throw roadblocks in the way of God ?
He knows who He wants to govern His church.
He will make that man meet all His qualifications.

Yeah, of course God knows, but you don't .

 

[hawkman]

Moderator Note .
1.3: Use self control and focus on reconcilliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread.

 

[Hopeful 2]

It's not a commandment only because it was not one-size-fits-all, Paul wished all were unmarried as he was,

He didn't write that until after he had already said..."Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2)

but for some in that congregation who were already married, they should remain married, even if they married an unbeliever. That is of the Spirit as much as any other word of God.

Agreed.

Do you know what a name game is?

You have a habit of answering questions with questions.
I know what a game is. ?

I do adhere by this: "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." You're the one who misconstrues the Lord's instructions, you have no spirit to comprehend it in proper context. If you pride yourself as a "hardcore bible adherent", then enlighten me, should women be allowed to teach the word of God in any capacity, including teaching in children's or women's ministry?

Women are not to teach men. (1 Tim 2:12)

Where is this definition in the bible? Which requirement puts such a leash on a pastor/bishop? This is totally made up.

What are a "shepherds" duties ?
Isn't it to keep a flock safe and fed ?
If the bishop/shepherd is away for long stretches of time, the flock will suffer.

Yeah, of course God knows, but you don't .

As long as you give God the credit to do His own will, why suspect He will go outside of His will to put a "single" man in charge of His church ?

The qualifications for "bishop" are written in black and white.
Let's just follow them.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

He didn't write that until after he had already said..."Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2)

That's not an order, suggestion or recommendation for marriage, that's the 8th commandment - "you shall not commit adultery."

You have a habit of answering questions with questions.

I've learnt it from our Lord who knew a loaded question when he heard one.

I know what a game is. ?

No, you don't.

Women are not to teach men. (1 Tim 2:12)

Then you're a hardcore misogynist. God loves his daughters as much as his sons.

What are a "shepherds" duties ?
Isn't it to keep a flock safe and fed ?
If the bishop/shepherd is away for long stretches of time, the flock will suffer.

And whose fault is that? The bishop's or the evil servant's? You know, the evil servant who beats up his fellow servant in the master's absence? See Matt. 24:45-50.

As long as you give God the credit to do His own will, why suspect He will go outside of His will to put a "single" man in charge of His church ?

Was Lord Jesus married? Was any of the disciples married? Oh yeah, Peter, he was married, but that was before his annointing of the Holy Spirit, after that he never tended to his wife, he went away to preach the gospel. And he had no children, no record suggests he had any. Does that mean the Lord himself and his disciples were all unqualified? The author of James was most definitely a bishop, was he married with any children? This letter was written to Timothy, was Timothy married with any children? Show me the biblical and/or historical evidence of their marital status. Show me. If you can't, then God did put single men in charge of his church.

The qualifications for "bishop" are written in black and white.
Let's just follow them.

The bible has no contradicting message, don't make any.
Also, Paul is not a hypocrite, don't make him one.

 

[Hopeful 2]

That's not an order, suggestion or recommendation for marriage, that's the 8th commandment - "you shall not commit adultery."

So we agree that there is nothing wrong with getting married.

I've learnt it from our Lord who knew a loaded question when he heard one.

Good.

No, you don't.

Is this a game your playing ?

Then you're a hardcore misogynist. God loves his daughters as much as his sons.

Call obedience to scripture anything you want.
Men and women have differing roles in God's kingdom.
Outside of God's kingdom, you can cross roles as much as the "trans" people do.

And whose fault is that? The bishop's or the evil servant's? You know, the evil servant who beats up his fellow servant in the master's absence? See Matt. 24:45-50.

It is the bishop's/shepherd's fault.

Was Lord Jesus married? Was any of the disciples married? Oh yeah, Peter, he was married,

You have your answer.

but that was before his annointing of the Holy Spirit,

He was still married after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

after that he never tended to his wife, he went away to preach the gospel.

It seems he was based around Jerusalem ...with his family, between visits to different places.

And he had no children, no record suggests he had any. Does that mean the Lord himself and his disciples were all unqualified?

None of them were a pastor to a church.

The author of James was most definitely a bishop, was he married with any children?

How can we know if either of those statements are true ?
You are grasping for straws.

This letter was written to Timothy, was Timothy married with any children? Show me the biblical and/or historical evidence of their marital status. Show me. If you can't, then God did put single men in charge of his church.

Timothy is never described as a bishop/pastor.

The bible has no contradicting message, don't make any.
Also, Paul is not a hypocrite, don't make him one.

I haven't and won't.
Paul wasn't a hypocrite, and he told us the qualifications for being a bishop...twice !
One of those is that he have experience guiding a wife and kids.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

So we agree that there is nothing wrong with getting married.

But there's everything wrong with discrimination against single people.

Is this a game your playing ?

I have no interest at playing any name game.

Call obedience to scripture anything you want.
Men and women have differing roles in God's kingdom.
Outside of God's kingdom, you can cross roles as much as the "trans" people do.

In God's kingdom, sister Phoebe was appointed as a deacon (Rom: 16:1-2), does that mean she must be a "husband of a wife" also? Are you suggesting she who carried the letter to the Roman church was a "trans" people?

It is the bishop's/shepherd's fault.

You're contradicting the Lord's teaching.

He was still married after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

It seems he was based around Jerusalem ...with his family, between visits to different places.

No he wasn't, he went away, and he was martyrred at the end.

None of them were a pastor to a church.

Again, you're playing name game.

How can we know if either of those statements are true ?
You are grasping for straws.

Do your own study and educate yourself. Peter was NOT based in Jerusalem, James was.

Timothy is never described as a bishop/pastor.

Timothy was the pastor of the Ephesian church. Don't take my word for it, go look it up yourself. You're contradicting historical and biblical evidence.

I haven't and won't.
Paul wasn't a hypocrite, and he told us the qualifications for being a bishop...twice !
One of those is that he have experience guiding a wife and kids.

Timothy was most definitely a pastor as well as a bishop, show me the evidence of his marital status to prove this qualification.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yeah I agree that a Christian should actually be a mature Christian with all the spiritual qualifications that make a mature Christian before getting married. Thinking that marriage is some quick fix that will prevent you from watching porn or stop you from sleeping around isn't going to happen. As a mature spiritual Christian you should have already have these kinds of things under control if you're listening to God's Holy Spirit and being obedient to it's influences.
The point I'm trying to make regarding 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 is that when one reads the phrase, "the husband of one wife," at 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 God isn't saying that a Christian man is forbidden to be single if he wants to be and Elder or Deacon. God isn't commanding the single man if you want to be an Elder or Deacon you have to get married and have children. God doesn't forbid a Christian man to be single or married if he wants to be an Elder or Deacon. When someone says to me that when the scriptures say that how can a Christian man who can't manage his own household be able to manage God's house. I'll say to them the man who is married with children who didn't manage his own house properly, didn't manage his house properly because the man didn't listen and obey what God's Holy Spirit was influencing him to do when God's Holy Spirit was influencing the Christian man, how he should manage his own house. So of course if the man will not listen to God's Holy Spirit when God's Holy Spirit influences the man how the man should manage his own house, and the man doesn't listen then the man isn't going to listen to how God's Holy Spirit is telling or influencing the man how he should manage God's house either. God's Holy Spirit can influence a single man how to manage God's house. For someone to say to me or even imply that God's Holy Spirit can't influence a Christian single man how to manage God's house simply because the Christian man has never been married or had children, I'm just not going to agree with that.

You know, taking God's word on face value without digging any deeper, teaching man made doctrine based on a misconstrued verse, and using that to shut off dissenting opinions, that is intellectual SLOTH, it is as sinful as bodily sloth.

 

[Hopeful 2]

But there's everything wrong with discrimination against single people.

If you don't meet the requirements you don't get the job.

In God's kingdom, sister Phoebe was appointed as a deacon (Rom: 16:1-2),

That is not biblical.
You have believed a lie.

You're contradicting the Lord's teaching.

The bishop has a job.
If he goes astray, he is unworthy of the job.

No he wasn't, he went away, and he was martyrred at the end.

As nothing is written about Peter's personal life in the bible, your opinion is mere conjecture.

Again, you're playing name game.

Were any of them a pastor of a church ?

Do your own study and educate yourself. Peter was NOT based in Jerusalem, James was.

Both were. (Acts 8:1)

Timothy was the pastor of the Ephesian church. Don't take my word for it, go look it up yourself. You're contradicting historical and biblical evidence.

Prove it.

Timothy was most definitely a pastor as well as a bishop, show me the evidence of his marital status to prove this qualification.

Prove it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is not biblical.
You have believed a lie.

You're calling God's holy word a lie?

Were any of them a pastor of a church ?

Prove it.

Prove it.

Timothy was appointed as an overseer of the Ephesian church, he was most definitely a pastor. Now you prove it to me that he was married. Produce evidence of his marital status.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine. (1 Tim. 1:3)

The bishop has a job.
If he goes astray, he is unworthy of the job.

Going away on a journey is not going astray from the faith. You're contradicting the Lord's teaching.

If you don't meet the requirements you don't get the job.

Church leader is a calling, not a job.