Does Unsaved Children Disqualify and Elder, Deacon or Pastor?

[The Biblicist]

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.

We do not know who the elect are just like you don't know who will receive the gospel and who will not. The only way you can know is preach the gospel to them and see how they respond. Until they are dead and buried they are the audience for gospel teaching and preaching. Election does not specify the names of who and who will not. Election does not specify the age when they will be saved. God has not only chosen his people "to salvation" but he has chosen the means "through" which he will save those people - preaching of the gospel.

With regard to children you should not force them to make a profession (many do through fear tactics and pressure) and you cannot determine the age they should believe. The Bible nowhere makes it a qualification to fill the office of Pastor or deacon that their children must be saved or be believers. I know one text is twisted to make that conclusion but that text simply uses the word "faithful" and then defines what that means - not unruly or riotous.

All my children made professions of faith during their early childhood (7-13) and I made it a point not to put pressure on them, scare them in any way but when they asked questions I answered them and of course prayed for them. However, after some reached adulthood and left home at least two recognized they made false professions. One of those two became a true believer with manifest fruits. The other one presently hates God and the bible and wants nothing to do with either. However, I never give up on that one child and as long as that child breaths I am going to pray for their salvation and share the gospel when that child allows me.

 

[Reynolds]

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

I would highly disagree. From a Calvinist perspective, a Child being unsaved is completely outside the control of the parent. The parent can't be held accountable for something totally outside his control.

The actions of the Child would only disqualify the elder if he was responsible for those actions. If the kid was a drunk, druggie, in trouble with the law, etc, then that would disqualify the elder/deacon. Salvation of the Child would boil down on your view on salvation.

 

[Jerome]

Yes, no need to step down, as long as he's 'Matt. 18'-ed the child.

Per John Piper:

excommunication..."let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)"

PK Jonathan Merritt interviews fellow PK Barnabas Piper:

Merritt: "A while back, your dad rather publicly enacted church discipline on your brother, and even excommunicated him from the church. Did you support this?"

[Abraham Piper was 19 when this went down]

B. Piper: "it was too sad to be supportive of. My brother at that time was not a believer, by his own admission....I understood why it happened....it had to do with the 'manage your household' criteria out of 1 Timothy....The pastor’s family, especially that of a nationally known pastor, is always under scrutiny....People still ask me about my brother now, and it’s been 11 or 12 years. That’s kind of ridiculous."

 

[MB]

(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 .

It seems to me men have no control of whether anyone accepts Christ as Savior. A pastor cannot force their own children to be saved. As far of the Children's behavior, he can beat the children and try to drive Satan far from them. yet I do not believe anyone has ever been successful with this method. Beating the child just may make them hate you.

Men will say if he cannot control his family his witness is destroyed and he should not be a pastor. I laugh at this because I've never known any man who controls his own family. Unless they beat their family so much the family is absolutely terrified and in fear of loosing their lives All anyone can do is tell the children about Christ. If they believe you have won them to Christ. if they choose not to believe their is nothing you can do about it. Someone else may tell them about Christ and win them over. Yet if they are head strong and still reject Christ they will be lost.

God does not hold us responsible for the actions of our Children. Why should the church do it?
MB

 

[Reynolds]

God does not hold us responsible for the actions of our Children. Why should the church do it?
MB

Maybe because The Bible lays it out as a qualification for eldership.

 

[rlvaughn]

(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 .

I would interpret the sentence in verse 6 by taking "not accused of riot or unruly" as the explanation of what Paul means by the word "faithful," which has more than one connotation. This accords with his statements to bishops (elders) and deacons in 1 Timothy 3, where the emphasis is on order in the household (1 Timothy 3:4-5; 1 Timothy 3:12).

I noticed several commentators who take the position that the children of elders should be believers in Christ. If so, it seems one would also need to take the position that only men with children of age should be ordained elders, for as Baptists we certainly understand that infants are not "believers in Christ" and withhold baptism until such time as they come to belief. It would be interesting to know how many commentators advocated this -- children must be believers in Christ -- as the correct interpretation actually practiced it in their churches.

 

[Van]

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 ???

Thanks Salty, here is what they said about my answers:

You are a staunch non-Calvinist. You may even call yourself an Arminian. You are very confident about your beliefs and convictions. You submit to God's authority and strive to glorify Him. You believe that God loves everyone, and that the gospel is an offer open to all people. May God richly bless you!

 

[Jesus Saves!]

Salvation is between the individual and the Lord. We can bring up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but it takes the Lord to save them. One has to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling meaning settle our differences of being a sinner with the Lord.

 

[Dave G]

You tell men they can't be saved unless they are elect.

I disagree.
Most "Calvinists" understand that salvation is entirely of God, start to finish.
They do not tell men they cannot be saved unless they are elect, they tell men that they are saved because they are elect.

To the OP:

I agree with your position and that of several others.
The qualification is for a man that rules his house well, not having unruly children.
It doesn't matter if they are saved or not.


May God bless you.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I would highly disagree. From a Calvinist perspective, a Child being unsaved is completely outside the control of the parent. The parent can't be held accountable for something totally outside his control. ...

Logically from your statement should we conclude then from the non-Calvinist perspective the parents would have complete control over the salvation of their children?

The parents would have the power to either: (1) have their children become saved [could they even do that against the child's own will?], or (2) to cause the child to remain in their own sins and be condemned to Hell [what parent could allow that?]!

 

[Reynolds]

Logically from your statement should we conclude then from the non-Calvinist perspective the parents would have complete control over the salvation of their children?

The parents would have the power to either: (1) have their children become saved [could they even do that against the child's own will?], or (2) to cause the child to remain in their own sins and be condemned to Hell [what parent could allow that?]!

Some would say so. Nature and nurture.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Some would say so. Nature and nurture.

I do not accept your speaking on behalf of "some" unidentified other persons. What do you say? Is it true that you believe that the parent has absolute control over the child's salvation, or not?

If not, (that is, NOT having control is also the non-Calinvist perspective) why did you claim that salvation was completely outside the control in the "Calvinist perspective" as if that was exclusive to Calvinists? You denied any possible "nature and nurture" influence when you made your flat assertion.

It would seem to me that salvation being "completely outside the control of the parent" [your words] IS ALSO the non-Calvinist perspective because every child would possess their own separate free will. You also probably know that [generally-speaking] Calvinists are Bible-believing and would therefore consider themselves as accountable to God for bringing their child up in the Lord [just as non-Calvinists] whether the child is actually saved as a direct result of that instruction or not. I will mention Samuel and David as just two examples of Godly men with sinful [& probably] unsaved children.

If the case is that you do believe that parents have complete control over their childrens' salvation (through nature, nurture, or whatever else you might conceive) then please address the dilemma that such a parent would face: forcing salvation upon their child, or else condemning their child to Hell. And is physical "nature and nurture" really equate to having complete spiritual control?

 

[Reynolds]

I do not accept your speaking on behalf of "some" unidentified other persons. What do you say? Is it true that you believe that the parent has absolute control over the child's salvation, or not?

If not, (that is, NOT having control is also the non-Calinvist perspective) why did you claim that salvation was completely outside the control in the "Calvinist perspective" as if that was exclusive to Calvinists? You denied any possible "nature and nurture" influence when you made your flat assertion.

It would seem to me that salvation being "completely outside the control of the parent" [your words] IS ALSO the non-Calvinist perspective because every child would possess their own separate free will. You also probably know that [generally-speaking] Calvinists are Bible-believing and would therefore consider themselves as accountable to God for bringing their child up in the Lord [just as non-Calvinists] whether the child is actually saved as a direct result of that instruction or not. I will mention Samuel and David as just two examples of Godly men with sinful [& probably] unsaved children.

If the case is that you do believe that parents have complete control over their childrens' salvation (through nature, nurture, or whatever else you might conceive) then please address the dilemma that such a parent would face: forcing salvation upon their child, or else condemning their child to Hell. And is physical "nature and nurture" really equate to having complete spiritual control?

I think you missed some of what was said. An Arminiam believes that the Child has free will.(Not the Calvinist version of free will) It is their duty to do everything within their power to bend that will toward answering the Spirits call to salvation. Absolute control? No. It is their duty to continue to try to bend that will.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I think you missed some of what was said. An Arminiam believes that the Child has free will.(Not the Calvinist version of free will) It is their duty to do everything within their power to bend that will toward answering the Spirits call to salvation. Absolute control? No. It is their duty to continue to try to bend that will.

So you admit that there is no difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist concerning the control that parents have over their child's ultimate spiritual decision.

But now you seem to imply that an "Arminian" would exert more effort towards winning their child to Christ. If that was your intent, that is a most ungracious, disgusting, and heartless thing to say about a fellow believer (frankly, I wish I could use stronger language). I feel very confident in saying that Calvinists love their children as much as any Arminian parent and would also do everything they could to lead their child to eternal salvation (short of psychological abuse or physical torture, as if those kinds of actions could produce a true conversion).

Pray for the comfort of those broken-hearted Christian parents that have children that were raised in the ways of the Lord but have turned away. It is every Christians' "duty" to love all people and make every effort to point them to Christ.

 

[Reynolds]

So you admit that there is no difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist concerning the control that parents have over their child's ultimate spiritual decision.

But now you seem to imply that an "Arminian" would exert more effort towards winning their child to Christ. If that was your intent, that is a most ungracious, disgusting, and heartless thing to say about a fellow believer (frankly, I wish I could use stronger language). I feel very confident in saying that Calvinists love their children as much as any Arminian parent and would also do everything they could to lead their child to eternal salvation (short of psychological abuse or physical torture, as if those kinds of actions could produce a true conversion).

Pray for the comfort of those broken-hearted Christian parents that have children that were raised in the ways of the Lord but have turned away. It is every Christians' "duty" to love all people and make every effort to point them to Christ.

Maybe you should quit ranting and start reading.