A husband of one wife...

[Snackersmom]

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 1 timothy 3:12
[Make] deacons each be the husband of one wife, [make them] manage their children and their own households well.
“Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; Luke 12:35
"[make] your waist be girded and [make] your lamps burning."

I feel like you are still missing my point, and the funny thing is from what I can tell we largely agree. 😂

If you feel that Paul intended the passage to be taken line-for-line literally then it's only fair to assume it also requires a deacon to have at least two children, own their own home, and be completely free of debt. OOOoh, being pedantic is FUN! 😃😜🤓

Note: I do not think you are saying there are no exceptions to what Paul said. I think you are saying that Paul felt there were no exceptions. I do not believe that to be the case. Paul commended and supported Phoebe, a female deacon. Really, I think Paul was just laying out some general guidelines that would have applied to probably 98% of the applicant pool in that time and culture. It would have been silly to try to address every single outlier possible.

However, I could be wrong about what you are saying, if so feel free to clarify!

 

[Josepus86]

I feel like you are still missing my point, and the funny thing is from what I can tell we largely agree. 😂

If you feel that Paul intended the passage to be taken line-for-line literally then it's only fair to assume it also requires a deacon to have at least two children, own their own home, and be completely free of debt. OOOoh, being pedantic is FUN! 😃😜🤓

Note: I do not think you are saying there are no exceptions to what Paul said. I think you are saying that Paul felt there were no exceptions. I do not believe that to be the case. Paul commended and supported Phoebe, a female deacon. Really, I think Paul was just laying out some general guidelines that would have applied to probably 98% of the applicant pool in that time and culture. It would have been silly to try to address every single outlier possible.

However, I could be wrong about what you are saying, if so feel free to clarify!

Yes you are right in one regard it is not a binding criteria, for reasons you have pointed out, therefore we should be approaching these section with liberal exegesis and not prohibit woman and polygamists from office. This has been my point throughout this discussion.

 

[Josepus86]

Yes you are right in one regard it is not a binding criteria, for reasons you have pointed out, therefore we should be approaching these section with liberal exegesis and not prohibit woman and polygamists from office. This has been my point throughout this discussion.

 

[Josepus86]

Where does it say that a deacon should be debt free, I can only see “manages his household well”

 

[Josepus86]

I feel like you are still missing my point, and the funny thing is from what I can tell we largely agree. 😂

If you feel that Paul intended the passage to be taken line-for-line literally then it's only fair to assume it also requires a deacon to have at least two children, own their own home, and be completely free of debt. OOOoh, being pedantic is FUN! 😃😜🤓

Note: I do not think you are saying there are no exceptions to what Paul said. I think you are saying that Paul felt there were no exceptions. I do not believe that to be the case. Paul commended and supported Phoebe, a female deacon. Really, I think Paul was just laying out some general guidelines that would have applied to probably 98% of the applicant pool in that time and culture. It would have been silly to try to address every single outlier possible.

However, I could be wrong about what you are saying, if so feel free to clarify!

I am saying that whether Paul believed that there are exceptions or not he has communicated a mandate for an officer to be married, and if that is not binding, none of it is binding, but to apply this criteria we should approach as a ballpark figure with liberal (generous) exegesis

 

[Snackersmom]

Yes you are right in one regard it is not a binding criteria, for reasons you have pointed out, therefore we should be approaching these section with liberal exegesis and not prohibit woman and polygamists from office. This has been my point throughout this discussion.

Awww, you are letting me be "right" in one regard, how very nice of you! 😃😊 But we both know it's only because you happen to agree with me in that particular aspect. 🙄😜

Pro tip: you keep saying that you are here for the discussion and hearing everyone's thoughts, but you aren't coming across like you are actually interested in anything we have to say (unless you already agree with it). I'm not saying that's how you FEEL, I'm saying it's how you are coming across.

I am saying that whether Paul believed that there are exceptions or not he has communicated a mandate for an officer to be married, and if that is not binding, none of it is binding, but to apply this criteria we should approach as a ballpark figure with liberal (generous) exegesis

And I'm saying Paul knows it's not a "mandate", since he affirmed Phoebe in her position as a deacon. Really, he is saying that a deacons' heart should be towards Godly service, and their actions should show the fruit of it. They should be faithful and competent in what they have already been trusted with.

WAY too often we look at superficial things to "check boxes" for leadership. "Y chromosomes? Check! Seminary degree? Check! Marriage certificate? Check! QUALIFIED!". But Jesus said it was by their FRUITS that we would know them. Paul wasn't mandating that a man simply be married, he took it a step farther and said that he needed to be an actual GOOD CARETAKER of everything he had already been entrusted with, which would generally include a wife and kids.

Where does it say that a deacon should be debt free, I can only see “manages his household well”

It doesn't explicitly say deacons have to be debt free, I was splitting hairs to illustrate a point. However, one could definitely make the argument that a WELL managed household would be free of debt. 😌

 

[GWH]

I have come to the conclusion that the phrase "a husband of one wife" is a mandate and a requirement for an officer of the church to be married.

One husband per wife is the mandate for every person lacking the gift of celibacy so it must be assumed that God enables all unmarried adults to resist sexual temptation.

 

[Josepus86]

One husband per wife is the mandate for every person lacking the gift of celibacy so it must be assumed that God enables all unmarried adults to resist sexual temptation.

Where does it say “per” in the text?

 

[Josepus86]

Where does it say “per” in the text?

18 I warn everyone who hears the words ofthe prophecy of this book: pif anyone adds tothem, God will add to him the plaguesdescribed in this book, 19 and if anyone takesaway from the words of the book of thisprophecy, God will take away his share inqthe tree of life and in rthe holy city, whichare described in this book. Rev 22:18-18

 

[Josepus86]

Awww, you are letting me be "right" in one regard, how very nice of you! 😃😊 But we both know it's only because you happen to agree with me in that particular aspect. 🙄😜

Pro tip: you keep saying that you are here for the discussion and hearing everyone's thoughts, but you aren't coming across like you are actually interested in anything we have to say (unless you already agree with it). I'm not saying that's how you FEEL, I'm saying it's how you are coming across.



And I'm saying Paul knows it's not a "mandate", since he affirmed Phoebe in her position as a deacon. Really, he is saying that a deacons' heart should be towards Godly service, and their actions should show the fruit of it. They should be faithful and competent in what they have already been trusted with.

WAY too often we look at superficial things to "check boxes" for leadership. "Y chromosomes? Check! Seminary degree? Check! Marriage certificate? Check! QUALIFIED!". But Jesus said it was by their FRUITS that we would know them. Paul wasn't mandating that a man simply be married, he took it a step farther and said that he needed to be an actual GOOD CARETAKER of everything he had already been entrusted with, which would generally include a wife and kids.



It doesn't explicitly say deacons have to be debt free, I was splitting hairs to illustrate a point. However, one could definitely make the argument that a WELL managed household would be free of debt. 😌

I appreciate you loving rebuke, but whether I say “I” or the “text” doesn’t change whether my argument is valid or not.

 

[GWH]

Where does it say “per” in the text?

Where in the text does it say that unless the word per is used people can have as many husbands and wives as they want?

 

[Josepus86]

@everyone
I have an odd way of processing information, and I do appreciate everyone’s time and thoughts on the subject. I have kind of bit down and locked my jaw on this, and I do believe that the vast majority of believers read these texts and glaze over them taking their meaning for granted. Needless to say, I do believe my interpretation is the correct one, and I feel convicted to voice it, which is probably going to be me against the world. But sadly this is how I am wired to process information externally through a confrontational process.

Just so you all know, I would also defend such doctrine with such fervor. Do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery.
If I may ask you all for your prayers as I converse with a man who practices homosexuality, and God bestows on me the opportunity to discuss with him Christ, I would greatly appreciate it?

 

[Snackersmom]

I appreciate you loving rebuke, but whether I say “I” or the “text” doesn’t change whether my argument is valid or not.

Lol I don't even find your argument to be invalid, yet somehow we are still arguing 😂.

I agree that we should follow the Spirit over the "law", but extreme care must be taken if we feel the Spirit is disagreeing with the law. In those cases I tend to think either we are not actually in the Spirit, or our understanding of said "law" needs to be re-examined. God does not contradict Himself, but our limited understanding of His ways can make it feel that way.

Anyways, all the best, I will pray for you regarding your evangelistic efforts! 😎

 

[tablet123]

I have come to the conclusion that the phrase "a husband of one wife" is a mandate and a requirement for an officer of the church to be married.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

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

Tit 1:5 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:
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The clergy is to have one wife.

The truth is everyone is to have one wife.

You can only become one flesh with one wife.