 » Site Navigation | | | | |
View Poll Results: Of the following options, who may serve as an elder or deacon? (multiple choice) | |
Married men (who've only been married once)
|     | 63 | 91.30% | |
Justifiably divorced men who have not re-married
|    | 48 | 69.57% | |
Justifiably divorced men who have re-married
|    | 49 | 71.01% | |
Widowers who have not re-married
|    | 55 | 79.71% | |
Widowers who have re-married
|    | 53 | 76.81% | |
Men who have never been married
|    | 45 | 65.22% |
 | | 
03-06-2008, 03:40 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 609
Thanks: 97
Thanked 199 Times in 107 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jd.morrison  A clarifier on my answer...
The checked all of them. The one with the unmarried man, I do not believe he should be a ruling elder. A teaching and preaching elder, yes, a ruling elder say on session, no.  | Why?
(I have no dog in this fight, honestly. I'm just wondering. I think that the bifurcation between teaching and ruling elders is somewhat artificial, anyway.)
|
03-06-2008, 04:24 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Foyil, Oklahoma
Posts: 530
Thanks: 121
Thanked 88 Times in 58 Posts
| |
Only 92% thought the first choice was qualified, do we have a couple catholics running around the PB in disguise??  | | The Following User Says Thank You to Sonoftheday For This Useful Post: | |
03-06-2008, 04:25 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 609
Thanks: 97
Thanked 199 Times in 107 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonoftheday Only 92% thought the first choice was qualified, do we have a couple catholics running around the PB in disguise?? | Hah! I was thinking the same.
|
03-06-2008, 04:36 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Wauchula Fl
Posts: 119
Thanks: 11
Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
| | |
I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.
But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter.
|
03-06-2008, 04:40 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 609
Thanks: 97
Thanked 199 Times in 107 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2 I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.
But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter. | So you're saying that "household management" in this context necessarily means that a man must have children in order to qualify for office?
|
03-06-2008, 04:54 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Wauchula Fl
Posts: 119
Thanks: 11
Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2 I do not find that the phrase "One that ruleth his house" is open to every activity in the household. else the church would need to investigate every intimate detail of the marriage relationship.
But the phrase is clearly defined and given specific parameter in that same verse "having his children in subjection with all gravity". There is no need to take the "One that ruleth his house" past its clearly defined parameter. | So you're saying that "household management" in this context necessarily means that a man must have children in order to qualify for office? | I believe that is a legitimate argument. But if we are going to argue that it is not then we need not argue that "husband of one wife" means that the bishop must be a male.
|
03-06-2008, 05:27 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texarkana (Border of Texas and Arkansas)
Posts: 15,784
Thanks: 1,531
Thanked 1,763 Times in 921 Posts
| | |
All of the above, so long as the biblical qualifications are met.
|
03-06-2008, 08:58 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Mountain Lake Park, MD
Posts: 683
Thanks: 203
Thanked 144 Times in 100 Posts
| | |
Does the Greek language allude to an emphasis on a particular word, either the word "husband" or the word "one" perhaps?
__________________
Charles Plauger
Member/Grace Reformed Church
Oakland, MD
|
03-06-2008, 10:31 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 119
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
| | |
Yes.
__________________ Travis Graham | Member | Christ The King (PCA) | Houston, TX "The world will bow,
and knees will be broken,
for those who don't know how"
- Woven Hand |
03-06-2008, 10:36 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Mountain Lake Park, MD
Posts: 683
Thanks: 203
Thanked 144 Times in 100 Posts
| | |
And so, what word is given the emphasis?
__________________
Charles Plauger
Member/Grace Reformed Church
Oakland, MD
|
03-07-2008, 11:13 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 609
Thanks: 97
Thanked 199 Times in 107 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon For those who only voted "Married men (who've only been married once)", a question that's already been alluded to . . .
If a plain reading of the text dictates that only once-and-still-married may hold office, does it not also dictate that only men who have children (not just a child) are qualified? If not, why not? | Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim Likewise, if he becomes widowed must he demit the ministry? | Anybody?
|
03-07-2008, 02:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pickens, SC
Posts: 1,511
Thanks: 276
Thanked 399 Times in 248 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon For those who only voted "Married men (who've only been married once)", a question that's already been alluded to . . .
If a plain reading of the text dictates that only once-and-still-married may hold office, does it not also dictate that only men who have children (not just a child) are qualified? If not, why not? | Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim Likewise, if he becomes widowed must he demit the ministry? | Anybody? | If an elderly widow woman is instructed (I Timothy 5) to be doing the work of the Lord. Surely this would apply to men as well.
I don't believe a person loses their qualifications to serve just because their wife died. The death might cause an emotional hardship for awhile, but it certainly shouldn't suddenly disqualify him.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27 Check Out My Blog: http://reflectjoy.blogspot.com/ |
03-07-2008, 02:44 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texarkana (Border of Texas and Arkansas)
Posts: 15,784
Thanks: 1,531
Thanked 1,763 Times in 921 Posts
| |
I have always appreciated this article: The Elder and Divorce: | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
Bryan Riddle
