-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
The teaching is actually in more than one letter:
Titus 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:
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Titus 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
It is more serious than if Paul is just teaching his own opinion because it appears in more than once place so you would have to disregard Paul.
2 Thessalonians 3:14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed.
Paul also calls it sound doctrine.
Titus 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:
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Titus 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
It is more serious than if Paul is just teaching his own opinion because it appears in more than once place so you would have to disregard Paul.
2 Thessalonians 3:14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed.
Paul also calls it sound doctrine.
Last edited:
Thanks for the references -- but regardless of Paul's wording or how many times he said it, I consider the Holy Spirit to be the ultimate authority, and we can observe the Holy Spirit making exceptions, even if it's generally a good policy for men to be in positions of leadership.
Paul was a human like any other apostle, and everyone willing to has received the same Holy Spirit as Paul did. I do not consider Paul's directions to the churches under his care, to be on the same level as commandments from Christ. I don't consider them to be meaningless either. And I don't consider a dogmatic, hard-line approach to scriptures on this, to be spirit-led or fruitful. I think you and I have made our positions clear -- but if not, my first post in this thread was several paragraphs, you're welcome to read and respond.
I have gotten a bit glib and my posts became less constructive, so I'm going to do like I said and take a break for now.
Paul was a human like any other apostle, and everyone willing to has received the same Holy Spirit as Paul did. I do not consider Paul's directions to the churches under his care, to be on the same level as commandments from Christ. I don't consider them to be meaningless either. And I don't consider a dogmatic, hard-line approach to scriptures on this, to be spirit-led or fruitful. I think you and I have made our positions clear -- but if not, my first post in this thread was several paragraphs, you're welcome to read and respond.
I have gotten a bit glib and my posts became less constructive, so I'm going to do like I said and take a break for now.
D
Two things that need clarifying. Not that I was hiding them, but I get that doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) can read my mind to get where I'm coming from:
1. Particularly when someone writes a long post, (and understand I know mine are often long, so not like "long" is a problem), I usually read it, agree with some but staunchly disagree with other stuff. In my mind it looks something like, "Point A, agreed. Point B, agreed. Point C, meh, maybe, but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Point D, whoa, wait a minute." Then when I answer back, I point out all the "Whoa, wait a minutes." I forget to add "agreed, agreed, meh, etc. So, my response to you was three "Whoas," not a complete Whoa! on the whole thing. (And, as proven already, my "whoas" can be I don't know that or don't get it.)
2. I'd say a good 85% of this forum's participants are contentious. I am of the contentious variety, too, so generally speaking, I've got nothing against contentiousness. BUT, I have problems with people who never listen, believe they are the only one with "God's truth," ad this is a constant state of being for them. (There are some of us who don't listen sometimes, and who think we have the truth sometimes, but most of us just have days like that, not a permanent part of our character. I get that too, because I'm one of those types.) When I realize someone doesn't have any truth (or very little) and yet thinks they do, and when they spend 100% of their time being contentious, I ignore them -- completely, utterly ignore them. Don't even have to hit the ignore button, because I take nothing they say seriously, so bypass their posts. KJV1611 is one such person. He doesn't listen and it is unlikely he ever will, so why respond? There's a problem with that. I ignore him, but I don't ignore responses to him. Soooo, some of the problem we're having now is I responded to your response to KJV, and it got tangled up in whatever KJV said, which I really did ignore. That may well make the points seem silly. I'd probably know that for sure... if I wasn't ignoring him.
And, something most people really do know about me. Yes, I like arguing. (You're not wrong. lol) Sometimes arguing gets us somewhere. Not just the person I'm arguing with, but me and anyone entering into the fray may get somewhere. Budging on positions is the only way you'll move me. Don't rent a Uhaul to change my mind, it's pushing me inch by inch until I come around.
Seems like a reasonable way for me to rethink. And, yeah, I seriously doubt I'm the only one like that, so who knows who else is being budged besides me?
(Just curious. Was that abstract or not? No one has ever said I have no abstract thought before, so I never really thought if I did or didn't? None? Hmmm. Didn't know.
)
1. Particularly when someone writes a long post, (and understand I know mine are often long, so not like "long" is a problem), I usually read it, agree with some but staunchly disagree with other stuff. In my mind it looks something like, "Point A, agreed. Point B, agreed. Point C, meh, maybe, but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Point D, whoa, wait a minute." Then when I answer back, I point out all the "Whoa, wait a minutes." I forget to add "agreed, agreed, meh, etc. So, my response to you was three "Whoas," not a complete Whoa! on the whole thing. (And, as proven already, my "whoas" can be I don't know that or don't get it.)
2. I'd say a good 85% of this forum's participants are contentious. I am of the contentious variety, too, so generally speaking, I've got nothing against contentiousness. BUT, I have problems with people who never listen, believe they are the only one with "God's truth," ad this is a constant state of being for them. (There are some of us who don't listen sometimes, and who think we have the truth sometimes, but most of us just have days like that, not a permanent part of our character. I get that too, because I'm one of those types.) When I realize someone doesn't have any truth (or very little) and yet thinks they do, and when they spend 100% of their time being contentious, I ignore them -- completely, utterly ignore them. Don't even have to hit the ignore button, because I take nothing they say seriously, so bypass their posts. KJV1611 is one such person. He doesn't listen and it is unlikely he ever will, so why respond? There's a problem with that. I ignore him, but I don't ignore responses to him. Soooo, some of the problem we're having now is I responded to your response to KJV, and it got tangled up in whatever KJV said, which I really did ignore. That may well make the points seem silly. I'd probably know that for sure... if I wasn't ignoring him.
And, something most people really do know about me. Yes, I like arguing. (You're not wrong. lol) Sometimes arguing gets us somewhere. Not just the person I'm arguing with, but me and anyone entering into the fray may get somewhere. Budging on positions is the only way you'll move me. Don't rent a Uhaul to change my mind, it's pushing me inch by inch until I come around.
Seems like a reasonable way for me to rethink. And, yeah, I seriously doubt I'm the only one like that, so who knows who else is being budged besides me?
(Just curious. Was that abstract or not? No one has ever said I have no abstract thought before, so I never really thought if I did or didn't? None? Hmmm. Didn't know.
This is true. However, bear in mind that of the 62 or 63 times Paul deals with the subject, he speaks of it as a condition, a force, or a power, 58 times. He seldom addresses sinS as the commission of a particular or singular act.
As always, everything seems to come down to our heart attitudes, not our righteous performance.
As always, everything seems to come down to our heart attitudes, not our righteous performance.
Absolutely. I see sin more as a condition...not only a specific act.
I was merely pointing out that a lie is as wrong as murder. Different consequences, certainly, but both are equally wrong in God's presence. The whole RCC concept of "mortal" sins and "venial" sins is foreign to my understanding of scripture..
I was merely pointing out that a lie is as wrong as murder. Different consequences, certainly, but both are equally wrong in God's presence. The whole RCC concept of "mortal" sins and "venial" sins is foreign to my understanding of scripture..
C
Yeah but an elder then is not the same as an elder now. We have a female elder. I think in the early church they'd call her a deaconess because elders were sort of pastors.
Still see nothing wrong with women sharing or teaching something with a covering though, not authorative.
It does look ugly if she takes authority (over people, not the devil, that's great).
Still see nothing wrong with women sharing or teaching something with a covering though, not authorative.
It does look ugly if she takes authority (over people, not the devil, that's great).
C
Two things that need clarifying. Not that I was hiding them, but I get that doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) can read my mind to get where I'm coming from:
1. Particularly when someone writes a long post, (and understand I know mine are often long, so not like "long" is a problem), I usually read it, agree with some but staunchly disagree with other stuff. In my mind it looks something like, "Point A, agreed. Point B, agreed. Point C, meh, maybe, but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Point D, whoa, wait a minute." Then when I answer back, I point out all the "Whoa, wait a minutes." I forget to add "agreed, agreed, meh, etc. So, my response to you was three "Whoas," not a complete Whoa! on the whole thing. (And, as proven already, my "whoas" can be I don't know that or don't get it.)
2. I'd say a good 85% of this forum's participants are contentious. I am of the contentious variety, too, so generally speaking, I've got nothing against contentiousness. BUT, I have problems with people who never listen, believe they are the only one with "God's truth," ad this is a constant state of being for them. (There are some of us who don't listen sometimes, and who think we have the truth sometimes, but most of us just have days like that, not a permanent part of our character. I get that too, because I'm one of those types.) When I realize someone doesn't have any truth (or very little) and yet thinks they do, and when they spend 100% of their time being contentious, I ignore them -- completely, utterly ignore them. Don't even have to hit the ignore button, because I take nothing they say seriously, so bypass their posts. KJV1611 is one such person. He doesn't listen and it is unlikely he ever will, so why respond? There's a problem with that. I ignore him, but I don't ignore responses to him. Soooo, some of the problem we're having now is I responded to your response to KJV, and it got tangled up in whatever KJV said, which I really did ignore. That may well make the points seem silly. I'd probably know that for sure... if I wasn't ignoring him.
And, something most people really do know about me. Yes, I like arguing. (You're not wrong. lol) Sometimes arguing gets us somewhere. Not just the person I'm arguing with, but me and anyone entering into the fray may get somewhere. Budging on positions is the only way you'll move me. Don't rent a Uhaul to change my mind, it's pushing me inch by inch until I come around.
Seems like a reasonable way for me to rethink. And, yeah, I seriously doubt I'm the only one like that, so who knows who else is being budged besides me?
(Just curious. Was that abstract or not? No one has ever said I have no abstract thought before, so I never really thought if I did or didn't? None? Hmmm. Didn't know.
)
1. Particularly when someone writes a long post, (and understand I know mine are often long, so not like "long" is a problem), I usually read it, agree with some but staunchly disagree with other stuff. In my mind it looks something like, "Point A, agreed. Point B, agreed. Point C, meh, maybe, but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Point D, whoa, wait a minute." Then when I answer back, I point out all the "Whoa, wait a minutes." I forget to add "agreed, agreed, meh, etc. So, my response to you was three "Whoas," not a complete Whoa! on the whole thing. (And, as proven already, my "whoas" can be I don't know that or don't get it.)
2. I'd say a good 85% of this forum's participants are contentious. I am of the contentious variety, too, so generally speaking, I've got nothing against contentiousness. BUT, I have problems with people who never listen, believe they are the only one with "God's truth," ad this is a constant state of being for them. (There are some of us who don't listen sometimes, and who think we have the truth sometimes, but most of us just have days like that, not a permanent part of our character. I get that too, because I'm one of those types.) When I realize someone doesn't have any truth (or very little) and yet thinks they do, and when they spend 100% of their time being contentious, I ignore them -- completely, utterly ignore them. Don't even have to hit the ignore button, because I take nothing they say seriously, so bypass their posts. KJV1611 is one such person. He doesn't listen and it is unlikely he ever will, so why respond? There's a problem with that. I ignore him, but I don't ignore responses to him. Soooo, some of the problem we're having now is I responded to your response to KJV, and it got tangled up in whatever KJV said, which I really did ignore. That may well make the points seem silly. I'd probably know that for sure... if I wasn't ignoring him.
And, something most people really do know about me. Yes, I like arguing. (You're not wrong. lol) Sometimes arguing gets us somewhere. Not just the person I'm arguing with, but me and anyone entering into the fray may get somewhere. Budging on positions is the only way you'll move me. Don't rent a Uhaul to change my mind, it's pushing me inch by inch until I come around.
Seems like a reasonable way for me to rethink. And, yeah, I seriously doubt I'm the only one like that, so who knows who else is being budged besides me?
(Just curious. Was that abstract or not? No one has ever said I have no abstract thought before, so I never really thought if I did or didn't? None? Hmmm. Didn't know.
Lol no I agreed. Saying nothing is agreeing, they always say here LOL.