Does Unsaved Children Disqualify and Elder, Deacon or Pastor?

[Steve of Brownsburg]

(KJV) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly Titus 1:6.
I am not trying to start an argument just get some help on this verse. I have two children both gone and grown. Both made professions of faith and only one is now in church and the other isn't sure where they stand with God.
We had a family come and showed interest and the father wanted to talk to me about our church. He asked my stand on this verse and I told him what I believed and he said" you may need to step down based on this verse".
I quote John Grill in whose position I take. " having faithful children; legitimate ones, born in lawful wedlock, in the same sense as such are called godly and holy, in Mal_2:15 1Co_7:14 for by faithful children cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not in the power of men to make their children such; and their not being so can never be an objection to their being elders, if otherwise qualified; at most the phrase can only intend, that they should be brought up in the faith, in the principles, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.".
In Grace .

 

[Deacon]

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

 

[Reynolds]

(KJV) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly Titus 1:6.
I am not trying to start an argument just get some help on this verse. I have two children both gone and grown. Both made professions of faith and only one is now in church and the other isn't sure where they stand with God.
We had a family come and showed interest and the father wanted to talk to me about our church. He asked my stand on this verse and I told him what I believed and he said" you may need to step down based on this verse".
I quote John Grill in whose position I take. " having faithful children; legitimate ones, born in lawful wedlock, in the same sense as such are called godly and holy, in Mal_2:15 1Co_7:14 for by faithful children cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not in the power of men to make their children such; and their not being so can never be an objection to their being elders, if otherwise qualified; at most the phrase can only intend, that they should be brought up in the faith, in the principles, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.".
In Grace .

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.

 

[Salty]

I was a Sunday School teacher - one in teen class was the pastors son - whom never profess salvation.
In addition, the pastors wife,never came to Sunday School - and often was absent from Morning Worship.

 

[Steve of Brownsburg]

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.

I am not a Calvinist, but I do believe salvation is of the Lord. We do not know who the elect are, but all men are candidates because they are sinners and the gospel is to be preached to all men for God has promised to save His people Mt 1:21.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Deacon]

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

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?

 

[Reynolds]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

The old ignorance assertion emerges again. Calvinist or Ignorant.

Now you are being deceptive about what I actually said.

 

[Reynolds]

Now you (snipped by moderator) about what I actually said.

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[Salty]

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 ele
ct or not.....

Actually, it depends on the "Level of Calvinism"
There is one church I knew of where on visitation night - 20 people would attend
Two would go out on visitation - the other 18 would stay and pray that the 2 would find the elect to whom
they should visit that night.

Check out his link on Calvinism

How Calvinist are you ???

 

[Jerome]

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

I quote John Grill in whose position I take...."[=] legitimate...born in lawful wedlock....cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ"

Calvin, His Commentaries

In Titus, Paul's first requirement is that the children should be believers

 

[MB]

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.

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

 

[Reynolds]

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.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

I guess to a Calvinist, it would not matter. The kid is either elect or non elect.

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

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."

 

[Reynolds]

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

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?

 

[Salty]

We are getting way off base on this subject-
the OP is:
Does Unsaved Children Disqualify and Elder, Deacon or Pastor?