Search results

Yet, if the intent of Paul is apparently to point toward the characteristic of oversight rather than to make marriage and children a qualification in and of themselves, then the church might hire a former youth worker or church administrator who they have witnessed as having oversight/management...

If that is the case then would it reason that the qualification is the characteristic of being a "good manager" rather than being "married" and "with children," thus people may observe this characteristic through other relationships and experiences rather than just the typical given cultural...

So, that would suggest that a father must not really be a good manager of his children since the word "must" wasn't used? That doesn't seem consistent to me. In both sentences the presumption is that "IF" the man is married and "IF" the man has children he must only have one wife and he must...

So, P4T, what do you believe Jesus meant when he said, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." and... "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." We all agree that man can't save...

Sure, he could. He could do like he did with Thomas and physically reveal himself to every doubter, or blind every anti-Christian on a road, or have every rebellious believer swallowed by a fish, or do whatever outward sign that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever. But clearly God is...

"Catch phrase" or question? Then that is your answer to the question. Now, make a sound and reasonable argument supporting that view in light of the apparent contradiction of Jesus' words. So, the correct response would be to supply the correct complete and efficient analysis of the text in...

I actually know a couple who has been trying to have children for many years. He is a faithful pastor doing great work. I'm asking if you all think he is unqualified according to this passage because he doesn't have children? If he is not qualified, are you actually suggesting that his church...

What is off track exactly? This is too vague for a response. So, what does Jesus mean when he makes that statement? How is that the logical conclusion from asking how Calvinists reconcile the meaning of this verse? The OP doesn't offer an interpretation. It asks for one. One in which you have...

Nevermind...he edited his original post...

:thumbs: I agree! I'm not sure I understand the question. Sorry. I understand. So, if this is the case, in the future you might not want to call us "enamored with choice," but maybe instead, "those who are non-Calvinistic" or something a bit less caustic? Cool? :) Absolutely. However, this...

And regarding the death of a spouse, what about a wife who sins and leaves her husband who attempts to remain faithful? If the man remains unmarried would you consider him still qualified?

Ok, so why can't you apply the same hermeneutic with regard to the qualification of being married as you did for having children? In both sentences Paul is presuming that the candidate has a wife and children, not that they are required for being a pastor, right?

So, can we take that to mean that you believe a man must be married with children before being qualified to serve as a pastor?

And with children, or not?

I don't believe God IS a respecter of people and from my perspective this verse is clearly about how wealth might affect one's will to follow Christ, not God's preference over one social class. I'm not arguing as if my premise is the correct one, I'm asking how this passage reconciles IF the...

Well, apparently, according to what Steve appears to have said, we do know at least two reasons why: Those who are "poor and weak" are more likely to be chosen, thus can you really say the election is unconditional? huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

What promise is left unfulfilled?

BTW, I do know of many who have come to know Christ later in life after much rebellion and hostility to God. Don't give up on them! Your approach may need to change along the way, but there is no reason to give up.

I suspect SOME might tell you not to cast you pearls before swine and move on. I, on the other hand, would say that while persistence in the face of rebellion may serve only to harden one in their rebellion, we can still have a great impact through loving our enemies and praying for them...

How does this explanation reconcile with an unconditional election? You seem to argue that God chose people based on their being "unwise" or "poor." Is that right?