Featured Does Unsaved Children Disqualify and Elder, Deacon or Pastor?

Once they are grown and leave the house they are no longer children.
The verse implies that unruly, undisciplined children are the chief problem.

Rob

 

No, technically it does not disqualify. If a person has kids that are still unsaved at 10, 11, 12 yoa; then he should seriously consider leaving ministry and rearing his kids. I remember James Dobson telling of his father doing that. That is my view as a non Calvinist. I guess to a Calvinist, it would not matter. The kid is either elect or non elect.

 

When evaluating difficult assertions (Elders must have born anew kids) we should look at all the verses addressing the same or a similar subject.

1 Timothy 3:4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

Could it be that the Titus 1:6 passage is presenting the same requirement? I think so.

We till the ground, plant the seed, water and nurture, but it is God alone who causes the increase in His chosen people.

 

Revisiting this thread:

In the NT when a man is converted the phrase "and his household" is occasionally noted.
e.g. John 4:53; Acts 16:34; 18:8.

The thought then was to be faithful to the master of the house, you would follow him.
It can still be observed occasionally today in primitive areas where an elder is converted and the village turns toward Christ.

Perhaps, while children are under your care (if they are "faithful" and obedient) they are under your protection and carry a special kind of grace.

Rob

 

First, you clearly don't understand Calvinism or you wouldn't make this statement. Second, why are you throwing this statement in this thread to begin with?

 

The old ignorance assertion emerges again. Calvinist or Ignorant. The reason it is in the thread is because it is extremely important as to how one would handle the situation.
Tell me how I fail to understand this area of Calvinism. The snarky "ignorance" claims are old. I can promise you that what you are about to "enlighten" me on, I already know.

 

Now you are being deceptive about what I actually said.

 

No. I summed you up accurately. You throw "ignorant" around instead of dealing with specifics.

 

You said witnessing doesn't matter for the Calvinist they are either elect or not. That is simply not true. The Calvinist position calls for heavy evangelism because we DO NOT KNOW who is elect or not. It demands we spread the Gospel. So no, you do not understand the Calvinist position or intentionally distort it to try and knock it down.

And you did not sum me up accurately. I in no way said that you are either a Calvinist or you are ignorant. I said you do not show an understanding of the Calvinist position. That is not the same thing. It was deceptive to say otherwise and a form of personal attack.

 

Take your pick LOL:

Calvinist John Grill: of course it doesn't mean they're converted or believers
Calvinist John Calvin: it definitely means they're believers

Calvin, His Commentaries

 

Actually you are the one with the personal attack
It all boils down to understanding a false gospel. I understand Calvinism I just do not accept it as truth. This not a misunderstanding. Here you are telling others they don't understand it when it is you that doesn't understand. Calvinist have no conscious memory of election. Therefore they do not know if even they are elect. Your evanglism seems pointless because you have no good news. You tell men they can't be saved unless they are elect.
MB

 

Where did I say "witnessing doesn't matter for the Calvinist...."? I didn't say it. I didn't imply it. You read what you wanted to hear.

 

You most certainly did imply it. What else could that statement have possibly meant?

 

All children come into this world unsaved. Does that mean once a man is a Pastor, deacon, he can no longer have children? If that is the standard then no children should be born after becoming a Pator or deacon and no one can be a Pastor or deacon with children that have not made a profession of faith which means they are no longer toddlers but are able to speak, understand and reason.

I don't know of any text that says that all the children of a Pastor or deacon must be saved? He must have his house in order and his children in subjection. The children are to be "faithful" meaning "children not accused of riot or unruly."

 

Since you like to tell me I am lying, and then edit it to being deceptive, I will be gracious and tell you you are being deceptive.

What the statement means would be obvious to you if you were not "ignorant" of Calvinism.

Evangelism is extremely important to most Calvinists, not so much to High Calvinists, but important to most. To most Calvinists, that evangelism is different than it is for most Arminians. (From here on out, I will omit "most".) Armenians believe the free will of the person has to be persuaded to follow Christ. To an Arminiam, if a person is not responding, it is their duty to keep presenting, keep persisting, keep persuading, etc. etc. The Calvinist presents The Gospel. The Calvinist teaches the Gospel, but ultimately the decision has already been determined. There is no need to repeatedly try to sway the "free will" of the individual.

You really can't see how a Calvinist true to his doctrine and an Arminiam true to his doctrine would not handle in a different manner a 12 year old who had not converted?